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.
Let's see if I can explain it more clearly. Let's assume that the GSL was not restrictive. Then a company could produce two lines of products, a 3.x line and a 4e line, perhaps alternating each month (e.g. Jan. 3.x, Feb. is 4e, Mar. 3.x, Apr. 4e, ...). In time one of these lines would prove to be the more profitable. In that case the other would start to be less focused on. In the end that line might be dropped entirely. Now, who has to fear that situation? Those individuals pushing for the less profitable system.
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.
Which appears, at least to me, to be a desperate attempt to buff up a questionable system. If the system was good on its own, these kind of tactics would not be necessary.
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.
And since probably quite a few of those wouldn't switch in any case, how is this harming 4e sales? If you produce a better product, you don't have to fear people sticking with an inferior product.
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.
Ok, then why worry if those 3rd party groups continue to produce products for older systems. You can't "eat your cake and have it too". If 3rd party producers don't really matter, then it shouldn't matter that they continue to support both systems. If they do matter that you want their customers to convert, then they really do matter.
However, if (on their view) they can get additional sales by putting a single clause on the GSL, why wouldn't they do that?
Of course they can make that decision. It is not an "evil" decision. But it does demonstrate, IMO, that they fear that 4e can't really compete against 3.x in a head-to-head set up. That looks like they are not really confident in their current edition. I am not arguing that WotC is afraid of other companies, instead I am arguing WotC is afraid that 4e can't compete with 3.x.
Let's see if I can explain it more clearly. Let's assume that the GSL was not restrictive. Then a company could produce two lines of products, a 3.x line and a 4e line, perhaps alternating each month (e.g. Jan. 3.x, Feb. is 4e, Mar. 3.x, Apr. 4e, ...). In time one of these lines would prove to be the more profitable. In that case the other would start to be less focused on. In the end that line might be dropped entirely.
Correct, but the point is, it may not decide to drop the less profitable system. It's possible that maintaining two lines of products for publics with different tastes is not a bad idea.
Which appears, at least to me, to be a desperate attempt to buff up a questionable system. If the system was good on its own, these kind of tactics would not be necessary.
And since probably quite a few of those wouldn't switch in any case, how is this harming 4e sales? If you produce a better product, you don't have to fear people sticking with an inferior product.
Of course they can make that decision. It is not an "evil" decision. But it does demonstrate, IMO, that they fear that 4e can't really compete against 3.x in a head-to-head set up. That looks like they are not really confident in their current edition. I am not arguing that WotC is afraid of other companies, instead I am arguing WotC is afraid that 4e can't compete with 3.x.
Not necessarily. In business, there is a concept called exclusivity contract. Company A (a larger, stable company) agreeds on a partnership with company B (a smaller company) if company B commits itself to not compete with company A, or somehow help its competitors.
It's not dirty, in fact, it's hell common. Large companies like IBM, Oracle, Boeing, etc. have dozens of smaller companies attached to them by exclusivity contracts. These contracts don't exist because these companies believe their products are inferior to their competitors'. They exist because these companies have more bargaining power than the small companies, and they can use this power to weaken competition without having to spend money and resources on that.
For instance, using an example from the aerospace industry, when Bombardier attempted to create the new CSeries aircraft line, Boeing and Airbus talked to their engine suppliers and "gently" asked them to not sell anything to Bombardier for CSeries. As an obvious result, this project was a commercial disaster. Do Boeing and Airbus believe that they lack the capacity of producing aircraft better than CSeries? Certainly, not. But why would they risk losing sales to Bombardier, even if they are only 5-10%, when they can prevent this by simply using their bargaining power?
In business, there is a concept called exclusivity contract. Company A (a larger, stable company) agreeds on a partnership with company B (a smaller company) if company B commits itself to not compete with company A, or somehow help its competitors.
It's not dirty, in fact, it's hell common. Large companies like IBM, Oracle, Boeing, etc. have dozens of smaller companies attached to them by exclusivity contracts. These contracts don't exist because these companies believe their products are inferior to their competitors'. They exist because these companies have more bargaining...
It's not just companies. I had to sign a non-compete clause with my current employer, forbidding me for 1 year from working within 30 miles of their premises if I ever quit working for them.
...
Thanks for the clarification. Sorry I misunderstood.
Correct, but the point is, it may not decide to drop the less profitable system. It's possible that maintaining two lines of products for publics with different tastes is not a bad idea.
Ok ... So what is the problem with that situation?
Not necessarily. In business, there is a concept called exclusivity contract.
How does it being a common thing in business prove that it is not being used out of fear of supporting an inferior system?
It's not dirty, in fact, it's hell common.
Common = Not dirty? Huh? How do you get to that. Also, I at least didn't call it "dirty" so I'm not sure where that is coming from. Though it is a good thing that no companies under the guise of this concept of "exclusivity" hasn't ever run into potential Anti-Trust issues. Anyway, we aren't talking about Boeing, we are talking about D&D 4e, which is an entirely different type of market.
Correct, but the point is, it may not decide to drop the less profitable system. It's possible that maintaining two lines of products for publics with different tastes is not a bad idea.Ok ... So what is the problem with that situation?
For me and you it's not a problem at all. But WotC may think differently.
Not necessarily. In business, there is a concept called exclusivity contract.How does it being a common thing in business prove that it is not being used out of fear of supporting an inferior system?
It doesn't prove anything. That's why I used the expression "not necessarily".
It's not dirty, in fact, it's hell common.Common = Not dirty? Huh? How do you get to that. Also, I at least didn't call it "dirty" so I'm not sure where that is coming from. Though it is a good thing that no companies under the guise of this concept of "exclusivity" hasn't ever run into potential Anti-Trust issues.
"Common", in that context, means that it's a legitimate tactic. It's legal, and competitors take it in consideration in their risk assessment procedures. Unless, as you correctly mentioned, we run into anti-trust issues, which I don't think applies to this specific case because WotC's strongest competitors don't make use of the OGL.
Anyway, we aren't talking about Boeing, we are talking about D&D 4e, which is an entirely different type of market.
I know that. It was just an example of how exclusivity contracts aren't (necessarily) product of fear or lack of product quality.
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.
I'd stay away from the Necromancer Boards. Only weird people post there....
Shudder
:)
I am what I am....
Well, that's true. You can write a "generic module" that happens to have stats compatible with any game you want, at least within some limits. But you could not publish it as "runequest" module and or even say "compatible with Runequest" without their permission.
Incorrect. Under fair use, I am allowed to indicate for which 'product' (in this case, D&D) my product is for use with. The only thing I have to be careful of is "confusing an average consumer" into thinking my product is created by the product company I'm saying it is for use with. (if that made sense).
That's why all those 1e era generic modules said things like "compatible with major Roleplaying games" and similar things. They weren't allowed to say they worked with D&D.
Actually, I'm guessing the reason was the 'generic modules' were run by three guys in a basement or a 'company' with a gross yearly operating cost of $1000. When TSR, with it's MILLIONS of dollars and legions of lawyers says "Hey, stop that or we'll take you to court for...well, something. Trust us, do what we say...you can't afford not to.". That's why they didn't mention "AD&D" or whatever. But they totally could, legally. But you don't have to be right in order to sue someone in the US. You can just make s~#$ up and sue your competition into bankruptcy (see the whole 'Dangerous Journeys' thing...)
Anyway, as I said in the first post I made, go read up on copyright law and stuff. The OGL doesn't give any rights...it takes them away for the supposed 'promise' to not sue you. Of course, they still sued a few companies for making d20 stuff they didn't like, and don't get me started on the later Hackmaster stuff they played shinanigans with! Grrr!
Krauser and Joela, sorry I took such a testy tone last week. Obviously I'm a little conflicted about the circumstances surrounding the new edition, but that's not an excuse to give harsh responses to pretty innocuous statements. I look forward to reading more from both of you in the future.
|
Krauser and Joela, sorry I took such a testy tone last week. Obviously I'm a little conflicted about the circumstances surrounding the new edition, but that's not an excuse to give harsh responses to pretty innocuous statements. I look forward to reading more from both of you in the future.
You were harsh? I noted you disagreed with what WotC was doing but I thought you articulated it well and were quite civilized from my POV. You actually sounded like one of my DMs who's sticking with 3.x and is keenly keeping an eye on Pathfinder rpg.
You were harsh? I noted you disagreed with what WotC was doing but I thought you articulated it well and were quite civilized from my POV. You actually sounded like one of my DMs who's sticking with 3.x and is keenly keeping an eye on Pathfinder rpg.
Thanks. I just felt like I was needlessly barky in response to a post from Krauser and took offense where none was meant. I get so much from these messageboards that I started to feel guilty that I was messing up someone else's fun.
|
|
Thanks. I just felt like I was needlessly barky in response to a post from Krauser and took offense where none was meant. I get so much from these messageboards that I started to feel guilty that I was messing up someone else's fun.
You were harsh? I noted you disagreed with what WotC was doing but I thought you articulated it well and were quite civilized from my POV. You actually sounded like one of my DMs who's sticking with 3.x and is keenly keeping an eye on Pathfinder rpg.
Not a problem. I forgot, but are you thinking of switching/using the PRPG for your campaigns? Continue to use the current 3.x? Or are you switching to other systems in the future?
Not a problem. I forgot, but are you thinking of switching/using the PRPG for your campaigns? Continue to use the current 3.x? Or are you switching to other systems in the future?
I'm actually kind of a weirdo. I hadn't even looked at D&D since first edition, but Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon lured me back in. Even so, I don't have anyone to play with, so I just buy all the Pathfinder line to read. Anyway, my girlfriend's nephews come up a lot every summer, so this year, I was going to try playing a bit with them. 4e seems like it could be a really good fit for them as players and for me as DM. But this GSL thing really got under my skin.
If the rules for Pathfinder have progressed far enough by the time they arrive, I might try to use them, or I might punt and go for 4e despite my blustering about the license. Thus my crankiness around the issue. ;)
I did pick up the 3.5 boxed starter set, so that might serve as the intro to PRPG, if I go that way. I'm pretty confused at the moment.
|
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.
Uh ... no.
Every company seeks to mitigate risk and place emphasis on new offerings. WotC's move makes complete sense and there is nothing even remotely "fishy" about it.
Krauser and Joela, sorry I took such a testy tone last week. Obviously I'm a little conflicted about the circumstances surrounding the new edition, but that's not an excuse to give harsh responses to pretty innocuous statements. I look forward to reading more from both of you in the future.
Oh, no problem about that! =)
Although I'm looking forward to 4th edition, I also concerned or bothered with some things. Particularly, with the long-term consequences of D&D "onlinification". But that would be the subject of another topic..
Yes, please, if you're going to be a rabid 4e fan please go elsewhere. You're not helping anything here.
On the other hand, you could just realize that a choice isn't necessary and that it's possible to play more than one game...
You can dislike a company's policies while still liking their products :)
Oh, definitely.
It's not the "liking" part I'm tripping over so much as the "buying" part. ;)
You can dislike a company's policies while still liking their products :)
True. But WotC is doing me the favor of making their tactics and products unpalatable.
Even if I did like the direction 4/e was going (and I was optimistic for a while), they've crossed the line for me. They spout lots of pretty, cooperative words, then engage in these (albeit legal) strong-arm tactics to strangle 3.5 support and competing companies.
To call their platform 'open' is disingenuous -- they're doing everything they can to stamp out competition (even as they say that competition is healthy).
I'd actually be more receptive to 4/e if they'd not acted as if I'm stupid and/or gullible enough to believe such absurd propaganda claims.
IMHO :)