|
With Wizards of the Coasts new GSL looking like it'll forbid Paizo from
publishing any 4th Edition stuff unless it gives up 3.x/OGL, shall we start transitioning over to Necromancer Games forums which is going fully 4th edition?
Actually, I'm afraid with this announcement, I'm out of the 4e boat. While I'm sympathetic to the Wizards game designers who have come up with a lot of things I like a lot, I have said all along that a GSL I consider unfriendly to the third party community was a potential deal-breaker for me.
I just canceled my preorder on the 4e core books and put in a preorder for Nick's upcoming projects instead. At the moment, it looks like the Kobold Quarterly site is down (or maybe just not accessible to a Mac browser), but as soon as it is back up, I'm putting in a subscription to Wolfgang's magazine, as well.
Though I am happy to be supporting Open Design and Sinister Adventures, I am a little disappointed at the fact that a legal issue came between me and a 4e purchase.
I wish you and everyone who will be playing Fourth Edition the great time I'm sure you will have. And to the WotC developers, congratulations on launching the new edition. My choice to move on is no reflection on your work, which I found a lot of merit in.
Just the opposite - I am now saddened that I won't be able to enjoy great upcoming Necromancer products since I won't be converting to 4E - Can't even get 3.5 conversions of them that Clark wanted to do.
I understand the business decision of WotC to make the OGL and GSL mutually exclusive. I am now only on the second page of the Enworld thread but the news does saddens me.
I sense a disturbance in the force, gamers are being made to choose sides.
|
...this is the first I've heard of the 'mutually exclusive' bit, and the idea of being forced to choose sounds very much like a 5th grader wrote the GSL. But then again, that's what I think of Wizards and their horrible treatment of the gaming community and third party publishers.
I'm solidly behind Erik Mona, and appreciate his leadership as the true steward of our game. If the new GSL prohibits 3rd party publishers from supporting the new Pathfinder RPG, or writing for 3.5, then the role-playing community should ralley against this action, and see those ring-twisting WOTC greed-mongers for who they really are!
For me, this is a huge deal-breaker, perhaps the "boom" Erik was suggesting in his post, 4E PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED. I no longer support wizards, they have lost my business forever.
But this is not enough! Anyone interested in a class-action lawsuit against WOTC? If what the OP says is true, this is a monopolistic move that should be stopped in court!
|
|
It's not monopolistic. It's their game they can make the rules they want. I'm surprised there is this much outrage over it, isn't it pretty common that companies keep their games closed to others making material for it? (Just read up on how much Siembieda flips over at Palladium about people trying to make conversions of Rifts).
While the news kinda saddens me... as mentioned, for Wotc, it makes sense on a business point of view. If eventually, 3rd party publishers realize that they can target a larger market by switching to 4th edition, they will do it and will have to bring their settings with them. Consumers of these settings will have no option but to switch to 4th edition, too.
There is a possibility however, that this will work against Wotc. It 3rd party publishers ellect not to switch to 4th editions, they will also be unable to publish conversions for their settings. Consumers of these settings will then, never consider to switch to 4th edition.
Hard to know what is going to happen... Although unlikely, I sincerely hope that Wotc changes opinion before GSL is officialy out. Because this affects their image, and the image of a company also has impact on sells.
Feelings put aside, I disagree that there is a "monopolistic" action on part of Wotc. Let's just think:
- With the GSL, the companies have the choice of going 4th edition or not
- If there was no GSL, the companies wouldn't have that choice
- If GSL is monopolistic, than it implies that companies will feel "obligated" to go 4th edition
- But companies will only feel obligated if 4th edition is such a success that they either go 4th edition or die
- If that's true, then without GSL, these companies would die anyway. So any competition would be extinguished
- So, not having a GSL would be more "monopolistic" than having a GSL
- It does not make sense to say "that not having a GSL is monopolistic" (if that was the case, TSR would be the most monopolistic company of the world because AD&D was never open at all)
- Then, having a GSL cannot be monopolistic
I'm shocked and disgusted. That's exactly what we do NOT need for our hobby. People and writers forced to "choose a side", as if there were sides at all..
And that hurts a lot the people that just want (by example) to continue to use their 3.5 and to have it supported, so i'm taking it personnally.
Perhaps WOTC has the "right" to be nasty, to make a short-sited decision but they can't hope to have the "butter and the butter money" as we say here. They can't do that and expect people to just say "oh ok, it's normal, it's not nasty at all, it's just fair for the rpgers who bought their books and for other writers who want to write with their favorite rules set".
And we have the right to be as short-sited and nasty. So, no more money for them coming from me. I will make sure to propagate the information to my fellow dm's and players, and i'm pretty confident they will be as upset as i'm right now.
Can't believe it.
I can see the logic of the decision, though I can also see how resentful folks will be for this and point to it as another sign of the Company's disregard for their consumers.
Personally, I'm happy to have nailed my colors to Paizo's mast and wish Necromancer all the best in their 4th Edition partnership. I think this scenario is the best we could realistically hope for. That said, it's also shifted my opinion of 4th Ed. from vaguely positive to indifference- will not be buying the core books anytime soon.
I guess I'm odd man out by not caring about the possible limitation. It is only because of Wizard's 3E OGL that the possibility of staying behind exists! Were 3E not open, Wizard's change to 4E would mean 3E was dead, period.
Wizard's wants people to play their new game. It's the only thing that makes sense.
Cheers! :)
|
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.
|
|
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.
Good thing for Wotc, perhaps. I dont see it as a good thing over all.
|
|
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.Good thing for Wotc, perhaps. I dont see it as a good thing over all.
I believe it will be a good thing. Publishers can focus their efforts and resources on one set of rules and keep the quality up.
I would also like to point that that I can't think of any other game companies giving people the choice to work with their product at all. I can understand that people see this as somehow restrictive, but it is still far more permissive than what anyone else is currently doing.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
I believe it will be a good thing. Publishers can focus their efforts and resources on one set of rules and keep the quality up.This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.Good thing for Wotc, perhaps. I dont see it as a good thing over all.
The problem is your anology is off. Vista to windows 95 support is akin to 4e to the red box.
4e to 3.5 is more like Vista to the last windows-xp is it?
XP is still great and worth support. Forced marching to Vista, with its real 4 times the hardware.....
But to your other point: there is no reason quality SHOULD suffer is someone prints a module....in 3.5 and 4e at the same time. Its the same adventure, just mechanics are different, no?
|
I would like to see Wizards' original announcement. I am wondering about the legality of its position. If the company is saying that you cannot mix and match 3e with 4e in one product, that seems more legitimate than saying you cannot do both 3e and 4e products. Of course, it's been awhile since I did work in copyright law and I'm unfamiliar with these sort of permissions.
|
|
To OP, your more than welcome on the Necro board it is my home. But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)
As for the other posters asking where this info is coming from, it is coming from this Enworld thread.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=4174310#post4174310
|
|
I would like to see Wizards' original announcement. I am wondering about the legality of its position. If the company is saying that you cannot mix and match 3e with 4e in one product, that seems more legitimate than saying you cannot do both 3e and 4e products. Of course, it's been awhile since I did work in copyright law and I'm unfamiliar with these sort of permissions.
If the terms of the GSL states that your company may no longer use the OGL then it has nothing to do with copyright - its a condition of use for the GSL.
|
|
But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)
What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
I wonder why you bother posting here at all then?
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.
Except tons of people have said Vista sucks and would rather stick with Windows XP.
The same with 4E. What if tons of people think 4E sucks and want to stick with 3.5E? A company can't be allowed to make mistakes? They're taking a huge risk, it's what companies do, and they should man up and be consistent with their stand on 4th Edition. It's as if they're afraid 4E won't sell as good. If you're so confident on your product being the best and selling, then why pull a move like this?
Sounds fishy to me.
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.
I see what you mean. But you have to keep in mind, that, really, everybody doing anything do things because it make senses and seems good for them (or for someone else they respect by example).
Nobody will tell you "i did this because it makes no sense at all for me". I was not trying to say "it doesn't make sense" ;).
The point that i want to highlight is: perhaps it "makes sense" for WOTC, but it's a seriously bad thing for me and for a lot of people, and, in my eyes, to the hobby.
A lot of things that makes sense for someone hurts other people or their interests. And WOTC could have chosen another path, less heavy-handed and, in the long term, perhaps more beneficial to them.
Now it makes sense for me to not support this decision. The games i play and the vision of the rpg hobby i support are hurted by this decision.
Something like the utterly amazing Midnight setting could not have been with this licence. And its future could well be threatened by this, as is the future of a lot of 3rd party books and creativity.
It's a forced choice. My best "interest" (what a bad choice of word, well you see what i mean) as a die-hard rpger is to have the MORE choices possible, the more writers free to create the more things in the way they choose, they love and they prefer. To have multiple universes, not constrained by something like "you cannot change the characters creation rules" or "you cannot change how magic work" or "your world as you developped it will be forbidden to be republished (or you have to change its rules) in (insert an arbitrary date) X years because we will revoke the GSL" etc...You see the idea.
If some publishers are caused to drop their "old" OGL supplements lines and campaign settings because the GSL is too restrictive or force them to do this, it is, in my eyes at least, very sad and i will not support it, and do my best to tell other friends around me to think twice before supporting it.
WOTC has of course, legally and economically the right to do it. Of course they have ;). But does it makes this a wise and good decision for the hobby and for us, rpgers? Not for me. It bends creativity and decision to a cleaver.
A lot of allegedly "good from an economic point of view" decisions are indeed bad for people concerned by theses decisions. And it oftens fire back.
For me, if WOTC is saying or thinking in a manner or another "we are doing this only because this is good for us and we are not bothering at all with you, fellow rpger or you, other writers and publishers around there" that's their "right" but it doesn't make it right or wise.
It gives me the right to say "something so self-centred and ignorant of global consequences for the hobby i have a passion for, should not be encouraged in any way and i must do what i can to reduce theses consequences (by not buying their books, by example, and by promoting another vision for the hobby, a vision where creativity with any rule system and universe is encouraged and not hostage to the arbitrary of only one company and of a contract).
Uf. Sorry for posting a so long and labyrinthic post, but i'm deeply sadened by this decision and cannot stay here saying nothing :/.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would like to see Wizards' original announcement. I am wondering about the legality of its position. If the company is saying that you cannot mix and match 3e with 4e in one product, that seems more legitimate than saying you cannot do both 3e and 4e products. Of course, it's been awhile since I did work in copyright law and I'm unfamiliar with these sort of permissions.
I would expect it to be a contractual provision - as the licensing folks always tell me, copyright and trademark laws are defaults, you can generally contract around them. It would be something like "in consideration for the use of the license, you hereby agree that you and any other affilite or entities under common control shall no longer publish any materials under the OGL." Copyright law isn't really doing any heavy lifting, it's all contracts.
|
|
What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
Yep really, as for why not, not sure what you are asking why not too. I am guessing why we are not all 4e fans now. If so, well we was all fans of necro before. That doesn't change, it is a small company and very personable. Most of us just like hanging out and talking. So i doubt that changes, plus more than a few of us will buy adventures regardless the edition it is made for.
Yes he is the most outspoken 3rd party publisher about supporting 4e, but we forgive him anyways. :)
|
|
I wonder why you bother posting here at all then?But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
Was this to joela or me? I am guessing Joela since he was who you was quoting but he was quoting me so...
|
|
I wonder why you bother posting here at all then?But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
Why not? I'm going to be playing/running 3.x/Pathfinder and 4E games. Paizo's going to be supporting 3.x via the OGL and Necromancer Games will be publishing 4E stuff. Why NOT post over at NG to discuss 4E stuff. Win-win for both companies.
|
|
Was this to joela or me? I am guessing Joela since he was who you was quoting but he was quoting me so...I wonder why you bother posting here at all then?But ironicly even though Necro is going 4e, most of us die hard fans and vocal fans on the forum are not fans of 4e. But we are nice about it. Just don't expect to see a lot of pro 4e posts or threads. :)What? Really? Why not? Clark's made it well known he's backing 4E 100%. On a more practical manner, once NG makes the leap, there won't be any of the 3.x/OGL products on his site, anyway, to chat about.
So let's head on over to NG forums and support Clark's decision! More product!
think it was me, dark mistress. (by the way, KEWL handle!)
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.
Well, one could argue there is a difference between not encouraging and actively discouraging. If WotC really had confidence that 4e was a superiour product they wouldn't worry about companies making products in both editions. Because if 4e was better, other companies would end up focusing more on it/exclusively on it, because it would just be a better financial choice.
|
|
Hi, I'm new here, but Ive played some kind of rpg since I was seven, and started D&D in 1995. I don't know exactly when did Skills&Powers became available, but I've been using it in my games till last year. My gamers simpy didn't wont to make the transition to the 3.5 Ed. Now, when our great campaign has ended, the time has come for me to start a new one. It's a Underdark-based, and I'm finaly using 3.5 Edition rules. What I'm trying to say is, the mehanics of the game don't realy matter. I've been bying 3.5 products all these years, but I'm only now begining to use them. Same thing will happen with the 4th Ed. In my oppinion, It's allways better to wait a little before jumping into something new and untried.
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.Well, one could argue there is a difference between not encouraging and actively discouraging. If WotC really had confidence that 4e was a superiour product they wouldn't worry about companies making products in both editions. Because if 4e was better, other companies would end up focusing more on it/exclusively on it, because it would just be a better financial choice.
Actually I think that's the opposite. See my previous post. If WotC DIDN'T have confidence that 4e is a superior product, then issuing a GSL that makes publishers have to choice between the newer and older edition is suicidal. Because they are likely to choose the older edition, and by doing that, they prevent their entire customer base of switching to 4th edition.
In the other hand, if WotC HAS confidence that 4e is superior, then they believe that they alone (plus a few loyal 3rd party publishers like Necro) are capable of quickly outselling other 3rd party publishers. These 3rd party publishers will eventually feel forced to switch to 4th edition, and by doing that, they will bring back the old "rogue" customer base. So, if their predicitions are corrrect, issuing this restrictive GSL makes complete sense.
If WotC DIDN'T have confidence that 4e is a superior product, then issuing a GSL that makes publishers have to choice between the newer and older edition is suicidal. Because they are likely to choose the older edition, and by doing that, they prevent their entire customer base of switching to 4th edition.
Well their entire current base won't be switching in any case, so that isn't too much of a worry. Also I find your assumption that it would be suicidal because many wouldn't switch to be flawed given the number of companies that have currently commited to switching despite not having the rules in hand. Alot of people and companies (edition jumpers) are going to switch merely because it is the most current version, whether it is better or not.
In the other hand, if WotC HAS confidence that 4e is superior, then they believe that they alone (plus a few loyal 3rd party publishers like Necro) are capable of quickly outselling other 3rd party publishers. These 3rd party publishers will eventually feel forced to switch to 4th edition, and by doing that, they will bring back the old "rogue" customer base. So, if their predicitions are corrrect, issuing this restrictive GSL makes complete sense.
Huh? If they can produce a better product than those looking for a superior game (not just the edition jumpers mentioned previously) will naturally migrate to their system. Thus as you say, 3rd party producers will feel forced to turn to their current system. There is no need for a restrictive GSL in that case.
Well their entire current base won't be switching in any case, so that isn't too much of a worry. Also I find your assumption that it would be suicidal because many wouldn't switch to be flawed given the number of companies that have currently commited to switching despite not having the rules in hand. Alot of people and companies (edition jumpers) are going to switch merely because it is the most current version, whether it is better or not.
Perhaps, but until now, it seems only Necro is clearly going 4th edition. I believe many companies will wait to see how things will turn out before making the transition.
Huh? If they can produce a better product than those looking for a superior game (not just the edition jumpers mentioned previously) will naturally migrate to their system. Thus as you say, 3rd party producers will feel forced to turn to their current system. There is no need for a restrictive GSL in that case.
Yes, but without the restrictions on GSL, 3rd party companies could publish versions of the same product for both 3E and 4E (what Sinister Adventures originally intended to do). So, they wouldn't automatically bring their customer base with them simply by adopting 4E.
Perhaps, but until now, it seems only Necro is clearly going 4th edition. I believe many companies will wait to see how things will turn out before making the transition.
I think at least Goodman Games has also declared that they will be going 4th edition. I believe there are some others, but their names escape me at the moment.
Yes, but without the restrictions on GSL, 3rd party companies could publish versions of the same product for both 3E and 4E (what Sinister Adventures originally intended to do). So, they wouldn't automatically bring their customer base with them simply by adopting 4E.
Except for a company like Paizo, they have already said that making two versions of materials wasn't economically feasible. They sometimes have a hard time keeping on schedule with only doing one version. Now Nick might be able to do it, what with all of his unholy connections ;), but most 3rd party producers would have to decide on one version or the other for most of their products. It is the whole Profit=Revenue-Cost situation. Even if another version of your product could bring in additional revenue, if it costs more to produce it, it isn't worth it. Or if it distracts from time you could be spending on more profitable work, it isn't worth it. If 4e is bringing in the money, companies are going to be more worried about producing more 4e products than making 2 versions of each of their products (2 4e edition products make more than 1 4e and 3e product).
EDIT: Besides which, this is kind of a distraction. Who cares if a company produces both, if 4e is clearly the better product, more customers are going to purchase it. If a company wants to make two sets, one of which sells[4e] and the other doesn't[3e], then how does that hurt WotC's 4e sales? The only reason you would feel the need to "force" people to come to your "side" would be if your side was weaker.
Except for a company like Paizo, they have already said that making two versions of materials wasn't economically feasible. They sometimes have a hard time keeping on schedule with only doing one version. Now Nick might be able to do it, what with all of his unholy connections ;), but most 3rd party producers would have to decide on one version or the other for most of their products. It is the whole Profit=Revenue-Cost situation. Even if another version of your product could bring in additional revenue, if it costs more to produce it, it isn't worth it. Or if it distracts from time you could be spending on more profitable work, it isn't worth it. If 4e is bringing in the money, companies are going to be more worried about producing more 4e products than making 2 versions of each of their products (2 4e edition products make more than 1 4e and 3e product).
I don't get it. If a publisher has a single line of products and for commercial reasons it can't handle publishing multiple versions of it, then why the restrictions on GSL would matter? It would have to choice between one edition or another, regardless of the restriction.
If a publisher has more than one line of products, than the restrictions on GSL will prevent it to have one 3E line of products and one 4E line simultaneously. That is: if 4E is an absolute success, it will be forced to convert all lines simultaneously, thus forcing their entire customer base to convert.
If the GSL didn't carry such restrictions, it could simply convert one of the lines to 4E and keep another line on 3E to please the old fans who really don't wish to convert.
EDIT: Besides which, this is kind of a distraction. Who cares if a company produces both, if 4e is clearly the better product, more customers are going to purchase it. If a company wants to make two sets, one of which sells[4e] and the other doesn't[3e], then how does that hurt WotC's 4e sales? The only reason you would feel the need to "force" people to come to your "side" would be if your side was weaker.
On my opinion, WotC doesn't think that 3rd party support is essential to 4E success. Remember that they seemingly considered not having a GSL at all.
However, if (on their view) they can get additional sales by putting a single clause on the GSL, why wouldn't they do that?
|
|
I would like to see Wizards' original announcement. I am wondering about the legality of its position. If the company is saying that you cannot mix and match 3e with 4e in one product, that seems more legitimate than saying you cannot do both 3e and 4e products. Of course, it's been awhile since I did work in copyright law and I'm unfamiliar with these sort of permissions.If the terms of the GSL states that your company may no longer use the OGL then it has nothing to do with copyright - its a condition of use for the GSL.
Taken directly from the announcement:
"The D&D 4E GSL will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in fantasy settings with the D&D 4th Edition rules, and publishers who register with WotC will be granted the right to use a version of the D&D logo that denotes the product as compatible with the D&D 4th Edition Roleplaying Game, in accordance with WotC’s terms and conditions."
and
"Wizards is also working on the details of a second royalty-free license, the d20 Game System License (d20 GSL). This license will allow third-party publishers to create roleplaying game products in non-fantasy settings with the 4E rules. The exact details for the d20 GSL will be released as they become available."
See D&D 4th Edition Game System License
There is nothing in here to say that is the condition for GSL compliance. There no details to adequately assess Clark's position. That is why I need more information.
This is not shocking nor is it a bad thing. It makes sense. Why would WotC encourage companies to support an old edition of its game when they no longer support it. It would be like Microsoft supporting Windows 95. It also means that publishers can focus on either the OGL or the GSL. I see that as a good thing.Except tons of people have said Vista sucks and would rather stick with Windows XP.
The same with 4E. What if tons of people think 4E sucks and want to stick with 3.5E? A company can't be allowed to make mistakes? They're taking a huge risk, it's what companies do, and they should man up and be consistent with their stand on 4th Edition. It's as if they're afraid 4E won't sell as good. If you're so confident on your product being the best and selling, then why pull a move like this?
Sounds fishy to me.
What you say makes some sense. Still, I imagine that WotC must throw in 100% support for its new product just to sell it as "better." MUST. MOVE. FORWARD. Tough business call, but most producers continue to move forward and drop their older editions by the wayside. Would I like to see WotC offer some sort of 3.5 support. Sure. But seeing that they aren't and Paizo is, then my money goes to Paizo.
|
|
Huh? If they can produce a better product than those looking for a superior game (not just the edition jumpers mentioned previously) will naturally migrate to their system. Thus as you say, 3rd party producers will feel forced to turn to their current system. There is no need for a restrictive GSL in that case.
My position only:
4e is NOT a better game. It is a different game. There will be improvements. And there will not be improvements. The question has always been, "Is 4e for you or are you willing to stay with 3.5? Given the amount of gold pieces that I dumped in 3.5, and the fact that I don't find 3.5 that difficult to use, and that I actually understand the rules, I don't feel the urge to begin anew.
If this is the case then it is possible that amongst their other concerns Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro, by requiring whole-hearted commitment to 4E from companies operating under the most stringent GSL, are hoping that quality of some sort will be maintained.
You are right. It is possible.
But given this point, from this post
We don't intend to alter the either/or nature of the GSL. I mean, if we open up that point again for internal debate it'll take another six months to get everyone in agreement on the best approach.
It looks like that there is at least some among WotC that do not feel this is a move for only quality control...
|
|
Perhaps, but until now, it seems only Necro is clearly going 4th edition. I believe many companies will wait to see how things will turn out before making the transition.I think at least Goodman Games has also declared that they will be going 4th edition. I believe there are some others, but their names escape me at the moment.
Goodman did indeed say that awhile back, but that was before the new info about the GSL came out. They haven't to my knowledge came out and said a word one way or the other since then. Keep in mind they make products for C&C and other stuff as well. If what is currently reported is true and since WotC is responding to posts and not denying it, it seems like it is true. Then they would have to stop making anything but books for 4e, least no games or product support for any of the OGL games they currently support.
|
|
There is nothing in here to say that is the condition for GSL compliance. There no details to adequately assess Clark's position. That is why I need more information.
Well he got his information or claims to have from talking directly to peeps at WotC on the phone and asking pointed questions and that was the answers he got. WotC peeps including Scott has replied in a Enworld thread about the whole GSL thing and have not yet denyed it is true, that if you go GSL you can not support the OGL. In fact they have in so many words said the exact oppiste and confirmed what Clark has said.
Keep in mind they make products for C&C and other stuff as well. If what is currently reported is true and since WotC is responding to posts and not denying it, it seems like it is true. Then they would have to stop making anything but books for 4e, least no games or product support for any of the OGL games they currently support.
And this is was what finally finished off my interest in 4e. I realize that it's WotC's name, it's their license, and they are entitled to make whatever decisions they feel are necessary to keep their business going. Really, even up to the level of telling a third party that an adventure could either be 3.5 or 4, but there could not be versions of that same adventure for both, I'm pretty much fine.
I just don't care for the part where it appears that a company has to devote its entire product line to 4e if it wants to produce anything for 4e. I wish Wizards well with what they're doing, but I think this provision will make an already challenging business tougher for people who have brought a lot of happiness into my life, so I just overall feel a lot better buying things I know I will enjoy from the little guys, in the hopes they will be around a long, long time.
As for WotC, they make some really neat stuff, but given the choice between buying fantastic acts of imagination from people whose philosophy I am in tune with, and really neat stuff from people who don't look at things the same way I do, well, not really a hard decision.
I agree completely Trey, If this is really true and WotC goes thru with it and doesn't change it to allow that. Then for me that will stop me ever buying any product WotC makes, I just won't support a company that uses those kinds of tactics.
While I personally hope that the GSL doesn't carry such restrictions, it's because I want that the game I like to get as much as support as possible.
Now, do I think that Wotc's attitude is imoral/anti-ethical/monopolistic/or "evil"? No.
Actually, it was WotC who introduced open gaming, since AD&D was never open at all. I don't recall anyone complaining how TSR was imoral/anti-ethical/monopolistic/"evil" because it never allowed open gaming.
Open gaming wasn't introduced for idealistic or romantic reasons. We all know, or at least should know, the reasons of d20 OGL: to have 3rd party publishers to produce campaign settings and adventures for D&D, sort of stuff which isn't, by itself, profitable to WotC but it could be for smaller publishes.
Eventually, WotC, correctly or not, came to the conclusion that the d20 OGL, as it is, simply isn't profitable. Then they took the decision that to them, was correct in a corporate point of view.
Does their decision affect other companies? Certainly. As someone who works in the Aerospace segment, I can assure you that it's an inherent part of capitalism and that sort of things happen all the time. Companies makes decisions which seriously affect and sometimes lead to the doom of other companies, including former partners. That's why companies have entire departments working on Competitive Intelligence and Risks Management.
Perhaps, since RPG is a social game, we RPGists naturally tend to think that corporate relations in this market should also function as cool, friendly interactions.
But when a 3rd publisher launches a game like "True20", it's not acting as a "friend", it's acting as a "competitor" to WotC. In other words, it's acting as a company, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just like when WotC releases a GSL that makes the publisher to choose between d20 OGL and 4th edition, it's acting as a company, not as a nice friend who wants you to be sucessful regardless if you are willing to help them or not.
When Paizo announced Pathfinder RPG, it assumed its position as a competitor, and I'm sure Erik and the others were prepared for that. While I doubt that the restrictions on GSL were specifically aimed to undermine Paizo's efforts with Pathfinder, it would be completely on WotC's rights to do that. After all, a competitor is a competitor, and no company is supposed to be nice to its competitors, regardless of the common view that "big companies=evil" and "small companies=good".
Sorry if I seem to be a mean, capitalist jerk. Actually, I (sincerely) believe we can make a better world by better trying to understand other people without pre-judging them.
And remember,
If Pathfinder RPG becomes a big success - and although I'm going 4E, I hope with all my heart that it will, then you will know that was because of Paizo's own merits, not because WotC had mercy or was nice to them.
...
Hm, not sure sure what Dark Mistress or I (since you quoted her agreeing with me) did to merit a lecture on how the marketplace works. I'm positive I didn't call anybody evil, at any rate.
I thought I was fairly clear in my post, but we'll try it again: I respect Wizards' right to do whatever they want with their name and license, but to the extent that they diverge from companies like Paizo and Sinister, they will also diverge from me, because I like those companies better than I like WotC. And as a consumer, I get to use my resources however I want, just like Wizards gets to use their resources however they want.
As I've said before, one of the things that is kind of wearing about the whole edition issue is the assumption some people on both sides choose to make that people on the other side are mentally deficient. As a self-described "capitalist," really, hectoring people about what they should or shouldn't buy should be anathema to you.
I would also like to point that that I can't think of any other game companies giving people the choice to work with their product at all. I can understand that people see this as somehow restrictive, but it is still far more permissive than what anyone else is currently doing.
Sean Mahoney
FYI, I don't *need permission* to write an adventure for, say, Runequest...just so long as I stay clear of things that are *actually copyrightable*. And, fortunately, ideas, systems and lists are NOT able to be copyrighted. And what is an RPG? A bunch of ideas, systems for doing stuff, and lists of stuff for use in the ideas and systems. Now, the *EXPRESSION* of those, and any 'unique' layouts of those rules...totally copyrightable. But "Roll 1d20 and beat the Difficulty" is not 'owned' by anyone.
Hm, not sure sure what Dark Mistress or I (since you quoted her agreeing with me) did to merit a lecture on how the marketplace works. I'm positive I didn't call anybody evil, at any rate.
I thought I was fairly clear in my post, but we'll try it again: I respect Wizards' right to do whatever they want with their name and license, but to the extent that they diverge from companies like Paizo and Sinister, they will also diverge from me, because I like those companies better than I like WotC. And as a consumer, I get to use my resources however I want, just like Wizards gets to use their resources however they want.
As I've said before, one of the things that is kind of wearing about the whole edition issue is the assumption some people on both sides choose to make that people on the other side are mentally deficient. As a self-described "capitalist," really, hectoring people about what they should or shouldn't buy should be anathema to you.
Well, I actually quoted Dark Mistress on purpose, and not you, because she used the "such tactics" expression, which gives me a feel of "somewhat unethical/imoral" tactics.
I'm not insinuating than anyone, either you or Dark Mistress is "mentally deficient", as you say. If I thought that, you can be sure that I wouldn't put such enormous reply, as I have no patience to discuss with people that are unable to put good arguments.
If you had this impression, then I give you my sincere apologies. I'm merely pointing out what I think it was WotC's perspective, and I really don't think anyone which doesn't see that immediately is "mentally deficient". After all, unethical (aka "evil") companies DO exist. There ARE things which companies do that are unexcusable or at least amoral, even in a capitalist scenario. I just don't think that's this particular case.
Much less, I said that people should buy 4th edition. To quote my own opinion on about what people should buy, on this topic:
Paizo is doing the right thing on launching Pathfinder.
WOTC is doing the right thing on launching D&D 4ED.
You are doing the right thing on switching to Pathfinder.
And I'm doing the right thing on switching on 4th Edition.Nobody is being "stupid" or "evil". That's why I sincerly hope for the success of both Pathfinder and D&D 4ED.
So, yes, hectoring people about what they should or shouldn't buy should IS an anathema to me.