Won't Paizo make more money publishing 4E products?

I posted the following question on Green Ronin, Kenzer, rpg.net, and Troll Lord:

"Why doesn't third party provider <insert your company> switch to supporting 4E? Won't they make more money than supporting their current OGL system?"

That's one of the biggest arguments 4E advocates ask about Green Ronin, Kenzer, Paizo, and Troll Lords. It's a good question. Isn't making money -- a lot of it -- all your company is about?

The responses have been interesting.

Green Ronin:
I think most of the staff at Green Ronin (and at almost any other game company, for that matter) would take exception to that last sentence. If making money was was it was all about, Green Ronin would be selling subprime mortgages or buying oil or trading in corn futures.

Spike Y Jones

Kenzer:
David_S_Kenzer
No. Our company is about making games that we love.

If I wanted to simply make a lot of money, I'd focus on my law practice. Who am I kidding, I already make an astronomical amount of money. Luckily my wife and kids spend it all to keep me grounded.

I original wrote the question in response to rpg.net posts discussing Paizo's "mistake" in not joining the 4E wagon train. Unfortunately, rpg.net has been too busy to access for responses.

Troll Lord:
I don't even know to begin to respond to this. I'm at a complete loss.
_________________
Richard McBain
Director of Operations, TrollCon
richardmcbain@trolllord.com

I didn't post the question on ENworld.org since it might be misconstrued as an Edition War question which the site's currently banned.

What do you think of the responses? For Paizo, I've received the impression, from its announcements and messageboard posts, that it wants to go its own direction.

I'd say those responses tell it all. The people who work at game companies, 3PP's anyway, are passionate about games. They are creative and place their ability to produce the games / stories they want ahead of just money (as long as they can make a living at it anyway). I think the GSL actually lowers the chances of anyone, but WotC, making money off 4E, and it certainly restrains creativity. Add the questions about how safe your IP is under this license and my only question is why anyone wouldn't keep their OGC lines open...

I get the feeling that, personal taste aside, Paizo has made a business decision that they think will net them the longest stability in the market. In other words, they have accepted a certain loss at the outset (designing/publishing their own game, not gaining new 4E users as customers) in exchange for stable income (loyal Paizonians and future Pathfinder players).

I might be off base, but that seems like a logical explanation for their decision.

There's a market for both, however, how long the 3e market realistically last is another matter entirely. Paizo doesn't need everyone, they just need to keep who they already have, if they can do that, they'll get people to trickle in (hopefully.)

As for the jumping on the 4e bandwagon, I remember when everyone jumped on the 3e bandwagon and all the crap that came out the first 2 years and how many companies disappeared. While many good companies are around, how many of these companies have had a lot of time to get familiar with 4e rules and make adjustments to them?

Only Wizards.

I'll point to the first Creature Collection book by White Wolf. A lot of people bought it. It's a good book, not as good as Tome of Horrors, but still a good book. The problem is, while the theory behind the monsters were sound, most of the CRs listed for the monsters should have be +1 or +2 higher then they were listed. Probably would have been avoided if they playtested it for a month or two, but they wanted to beat everyone else to a big book of monsters.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine that relates to this question. I realize that my opinion doesn't matter more than anyone elses, but here it is...

When they were still in the process of making the 4e decision, my heroes here at Paizo pointed out that they would follow WotC's into 4e-Land or go their own way based on whether or not they could tell the kinds of stories they wanted to tell. That statement sounded good to me--and it still does--but I didn't fully understand it until recently.

I recently came to realize that, while the game system doesn't fully dictate the social interaction that I believe is the center of "roleplaying," the mechanics of a system do influence how worlds, adventures, characters, monsters, etc. are designed and executed. This is probably an elementary observation, but actually forming the thought in my brain gave Paizo's declaration greater meaning for me.

Ultimately, I believe that is the true reason companies have chosen or will choose to go with one or another system.

I have found that it's really counterproductive for me to get involved in trying to explain why I love D&D3.5 and why I am encouraged by what I've seen from Pathfinder Alpha 3. As a designer of my own campaign worlds, and a GM for the Pathfinder modules, I feel that these systems have allowed me to tell the stories the way I want. I didn't need 4e, so I didn't want 4e. However, the advent of 4e (and subsequent discontinuance of support for 3.5e), will eventually create a need for a replacement. I have found that Paizo's philosophy of game play is more in line with my own, which is why I choose to stick with them. I'm pretty sure I won't like everything that Paizo does with the Pathfinder rules, but I'm willing to bet that I'll like more of what they do than what WotC has done with 4e.

It seems to me that, as organizations made up of players who are also game designers, companies are making decisions based on similar thought processes. Companies that make decisions based entirely on what might make them the most money run the risk of going the way of the old West End Games (WEG), who sunk too much money into licensing for popular movie and novel titles.

The stock response has been that 3.5/Pathfinder will allow Paizo to keep telling the kind of stories they're interested in telling.

From my point of view, it seems like a calculated gamble. If PFRPG catches on, that could probably increase their revenue substantially by releasing their own rule books (instead of just modules, etc.). If it doesn't catch on, they can always try something else later.

Given the GSL, Paizo would have to be able to negotiate a separate license for the answer to the question you pose to be anywhere near "yes."

Again I risk talking about things I know very little about.

I don't think Paizo has burned bridges with WotC. Paizo has just made an option that WotC did not present to them. Depending on 4e success (a matter of how long it will take to succeed, not whether it will succeed), Paizo can;

1- Lead the 3.5 OGL market to directly compete with WotC
2- Migrate 4e users to PfRPG as 'Advanced D&D'
3- Move Pathfinder Adventures to 4e

I am confident that Lisa and Paizo have both a short and long range strategy. With the delay of 4e information to 3PP's, including the 'OGL' and 'SRD', the decision to create PfRPG both allowed Paizo to improve their product offering and to position themselves nicely for the next few years. They have options that would not have been possible without PfRPG. Rather than follow the herd, Paizo is finding their own path.

EDIT: I should re-read Lisa's Pathfinder RPG announcement. It is probably more elegant.

To the OP... I'd also be at a complete loss for an answer... why even ask such a question?

Something else to consider is that the assumption that going with 4E will make more money may (or may not) be flawed. Paizo has a good sized fan base that buys their products. Some of these fans will convert to 4E, and some will not, sticking with either 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG. If more of their current fans and customers choose to stick with 3.5/PRPG, then Paizo will actually make more money by not moving to 4E.

Based on Paizo's decision to create the PRPG, I would assume that they expect a majority of their customer base will prefer this move and therefore, they will make more money than if they switched to 4E.

You may ask "Yes, but what about all of the NEW customers that changing to 4E would bring them?" I would counter that they've been a 3PP for many years now and have grown their customer base to it's present level through years of hard work. Changing to the newest system won't magically increase the number of their customers overnight. One can expect that they will continue to add new customers at roughly the same rate as before. It's far less expensive to retain current customers than to gain new ones in any industry. In fact, by becoming the largest company in the non-4E converting category, they may actually increase the rate that they attract customers, as people who previously spent most of their gaming budget on WOTC products will be looking for a new source of material that supports their favorite version of the game, and Paizo will be there, happy to sell them products to meet that need.

Just as a personal note, I'm in this category. I used to spend roughly 80% of my gaming budget on WOTC products, and now plan on spending at least that much on Paizo products instead, based on their current product schedule and past experience with the quality of their work.

I don't know about more money (though I do think that they can do well enough with the OGL), but I think there are other considerations that are as important:

One is that they believe that 4e won't let them tell the stories they want the way they want them to tell, and I agree. 3e is much more open, and you don't have to throw away concepts because the rules don't support them properly, or because the race/class has been edited out or doesn't fit the story any more, and so on.

The other is that the GSL is just too risky. It might be possible to do 4e stuff without the GSL (it looks as if some companies are trying that right now), but even that should be tricky. Even if it is, possible, it might be too much to be on the constant lookout to avoid lawsuits. And if you do sign that license, you're practically gambling with your future - putting it all one the Zero on the roulette wheel, because the way it is written, it's all too easy for wizards to sabotage your entire OGL line (they could amend the GSL to say that if you agree to it, you will forever abandon the OGL for everything you do, and unless you catch that and stop selling at once, you agree to that) and then pull the GSL away again. That could kill a company.

Just as a personal note, I'm in this category. I used to spend roughly 80% of my gaming budget on WOTC products, and now plan on spending at least that much on Paizo products instead, based on their current product schedule and past experience with the quality of their work.

I hadn't really thought about it, but I haven't purchased a WotC product since the release of the first Pathfinder Adventure Path!

The following scenario is an actual possibility under the terms of the GSL:

November 2, 2008, http://wizards.com/d20
"The GSL has been terminated for all third parties. There is no sell-off period. Destroy all your GSL-licensed product immediately. Remember, the back-conversions clause of the license survives termination and so is still in effect. This means you may not re-issue your GSL-licensed product for (among other systems) Castles & Crusades, D&D 3.x, OSRIC, Pathfinder RPG, RuneQuest, or True20."

Over the next 3-6 months? Absolutely not, 4e doesn't have the install base and they can make more money on their existing subscriptions.

Medium term 1-2 years? If 4e takes off it's quite possible they would make more money on 4e sales. In fact it's likely.

Longer term? With the GSL Wizards holds all the cards for 4e. It would be hard for me as a business to tie my fortunes to the whims of another corporate entity so thoroughly. If PfRPG takes off then Paizo will control their own destiny and whether they fail or succeed is truly based on their own efforts. What happened with Dragon and Dungeon magazines could happen with any single aspect of D&D gaming. Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice shame on me. Paizo doesn't want to get burned twice.

Keep in mind Paizo doesn't have to be competitive with D&D for the company to be successful. They just need to keep a platform that is active and compelling enough to keep their existing user base then grow that.

Honestly I think it is crazy for any 3rd Party Publisher to publish 4E material.

To do so that company has to sign on to the GSL, which as I understand it, means that the company can never publish 3.x products, nor quit 4E to return to 3.x products, and most importantly WOTC can cancel the license with the company to publish 4E products.

This in essence means that by agreeing to support 4E, a 3PP can have its business closed by WOTC. WOTC can cancel the license at any time for any reason, and if they do, the 3PP cannot even go back to publishing 3.x material.

I cannot imagine that any company would willing agree to be put in such a situation. If they did I would have to seriously question their business sense.

I've published some small third party stuff and can say that no one is really in it for the money. Even Wizards who appears to have the highest margins by a long shot doesn't pay what you can get in a good corporate gig.

I guess what I'm trying to inject is that yeah companies like Paizo and Green Ronin are in it for the love of the hobby but so are most of the staff at Wizards.

Honestly I think it is crazy for any 3rd Party Publisher to publish 4E material.

To do so that company has to sign on to the GSL, which as I understand it, means that the company can never publish 3.x products, nor quit 4E to return to 3.x products, and most importantly WOTC can cancel the license with the company to publish 4E products.

Actually, using the GSL is only necessary if a 3rd party publisher wants a royalty-free license. Presumably publishers can still negotiate their own non-GSL licensing agreements with WotC (which will presumably involve paying WotC some money).

To do so that company has to sign on to the GSL, which as I understand it, means that the company can never publish 3.x products, nor quit 4E to return to 3.x products, and most importantly WOTC can cancel the license with the company to publish 4E products.

This in essence means that by agreeing to support 4E, a 3PP can have its business closed by WOTC. WOTC can cancel the license at any time for any reason, and if they do, the 3PP cannot even go back to publishing 3.x material.

I don't read it this way. If a company creates a 4e product line and loses it due to cancellation of the GSL, it has to kiss that product line goodbye. It isn't restricted from creating a new product line. HOWEVER, a company cannot double dip by having a OGL product and a GSL product line. It's a tight fancy dance. I agree that there isn't much incentive to join the dance under a 3PP ... unless 4e really takes off.

But the way things are, there's nothing to stop a 3PP from riding 3rd edition a while longer just to see what happens with 4e (and its 3rd edition sales).

I guess what I'm trying to inject is that yeah companies like Paizo and Green Ronin are in it for the love of the hobby but so are most of the staff at Wizards.

Surely, there are people at Wizards and Hasbro who are profit driven. That's their job. But I agree - I suspect that much of the staff is not.

Just because you work for the man doesn't mean you are the man.

At this point, two pretty unlikely things would have to happen before we'd even CONSIDER publishing 4th edition Pathfinder products.

1) The GSL would have to be revised, or we'd have to secure a separate license from WotC. I have no interest in tying any chains onto Pathfinder that give anyone other than Paizo control over any part of it, to be honest. Pathfinder's currently Paizo's backbone, and hitching it to any license that prevents us from selling back stock or continuing to support our core customer base is simply not an option. As the GSL currently stands, I don't want anything Pathfinder-related coming within a figurative mile of it as a result.

2) We, the Paizo editors, would have to become fluent in the 4th Edition rules, so we can bring the same level of editing and development to those adventures as we do now. I'm not sure how long it would take us to get our 4th edition chops up and running to this extent, but I suspect it'd take many months...

Given the two options above, it's MORE likely that any 4th edition product you see Paizo produce will be completely outside of the Pathfinder brand. And until we understand how the GSL works and how that would impact our ability to continue doing 3rd Edition compatible product... 4th edition support from Paizo isn't going to happen.

And to address the OP's question... it remains to be seen if 4th Edition support products are going to be a viable business model. With the restrictions of the GSL... that's anything but a sure bet. What IS a sure bet, for Paizo at least, is continuing to publish 3rd Edition compatible product under the OGL; we've seen our business there actually increasing over the past few months rather than decreasing, which tells me that sticking with 3rd edition is a pretty wise move. The game's never gone through as drastic a fundamental change as it has with 4th Edition, and whether or not those changes are capable of supporting the fan base in the same capacity as the game has in the past is, I believe, an open question; one that we won't have solid answers for for at least six months to a year.

1) The GSL would have to be revised, or we'd have to secure a separate license from WotC. I have no interest in tying any chains onto Pathfinder that give anyone other than Paizo control over any part of it, to be honest. Pathfinder's currently Paizo's backbone, and hitching it to any license that prevents us from selling back stock or continuing to support our core customer base is simply not an option. As the GSL currently stands, I don't want anything Pathfinder-related coming within a figurative mile of it as a result.

I'm profoundly relieved to hear that.

Business 101: Signing a contract that gives your competitor the right to shut down your business at will = you are insane.

I'm confident that in the long run, it will prove much better for Paizo to be an important, independent player in a smaller niche market, than to be a leashed dog rooting around for scraps underneath the master's table.

I find it interesting to note that companies/people that espouse "because we CARE" are NOT using 4e.

So, by that logic, if all you wanted to do was make tons of cash by cranking out half-baked and ill-conceived sourcebooks full of holes and broken rules, you should follow WotC's lead.

I'd have to agree with that - I once asked a friend of mine (who owns a game store) about opening up my own store (a distance from his, of course), and he said - "If you do it because you love the Hobby, then fine, but if you want to get rich, go find something else".

Wise words from a wise man, who has owned his store for almost thirty years, while a dozen or so competitors rose up and fell by the wayside.

Hasbro wants to make money... maybe someone should break the news to them.

I don't read it this way. If a company creates a 4e product line and loses it due to cancellation of the GSL, it has to kiss that product line goodbye. It isn't restricted from creating a new product line.

That's true. As long as the GSL doesn't change and gets rid of the product line part. They could do that and say that you cannot do any OGL stuff if you signed the GSL for anything.

And unless you catch that catch before you sell more stuff, you're bound by it.

At this point, two pretty unlikely things would have to happen before we'd even CONSIDER publishing 4th edition Pathfinder products.

1) The GSL would have to be revised, or we'd have to secure a separate license from WotC. I have no interest in tying any chains onto Pathfinder that give anyone other than Paizo control over any part of it, to be honest. Pathfinder's currently Paizo's backbone, and hitching it to any license that prevents us from selling back stock or continuing to support our core customer base is simply not an option. As the GSL currently stands, I don't want anything Pathfinder-related coming within a figurative mile of it as a result.

2) We, the Paizo editors, would have to become fluent in the 4th Edition rules, so we can bring the same level of editing and development to those adventures as we do now. I'm not sure how long it would take us to get our 4th edition chops up and running to this extent, but I suspect it'd take many months...

Given the two options above, it's MORE likely that any 4th edition product you see Paizo produce will be completely outside of the Pathfinder brand. And until we understand how the GSL works and how that would impact our ability to continue doing 3rd Edition compatible product... 4th edition support from Paizo isn't going to happen.

And to address the OP's question... it remains to be seen if 4th Edition support products are going to be a viable business model. With the restrictions of the GSL... that's anything but a sure bet. What IS a sure bet, for Paizo at least, is continuing to publish 3rd Edition compatible product under the OGL; we've seen our business there actually increasing over the past few months rather than decreasing, which tells me that sticking with 3rd edition is a pretty wise move. The game's never gone through as drastic a fundamental change as it has with 4th Edition, and whether or not those changes are capable of supporting the fan base in the same capacity as the game has in the past is, I believe, an open question; one that we won't have solid answers for for at least six months to a year.

For a fact - 15 gamer friends of mine, just did the WAVE, rejoicing and basking in the incredible company that is PAIZO. We thank you & our game thanks you!

I don't think it can be legally enforced, though - To say that a party can't use an "Open Source" that is public domain, AFTER you are no longer under contractual obligation to them?

WotC might try to enforce that, but I'd like to see it stand up in court.

One other thing about the GSL vs. OGL that has been missed, I feel. With the OGL Pathfinder products have been following the stated vision of an updating OS mentioned in other posts, and this is beneficial for 3PP.

For example, I bought Green Ronin's advanced monster manual because of the templates we keep seeing in Pathfinder Products. A re-rease of Book of Fiends wpuld see similar sales, as it is referenced. Green Ronin's sales aren't hypothetical, the got my cash because their product interest came from Pathfinder.

When is the last time a 3PP was mentioned in a WotC product? We joke about Riddleport having a Stargate in the harbour, but the Stargate RPG listed a half dozen other settings in the bcl

Yes, but who has the money to buy lawyers to stand up to Hasbro's lawyers?

Probably because the current GSL grants WotC essentially unlimited power over your IP, including the ability to declare you in violation at any moment simply by sending you letter saying that you are, change the terms of the contract at will without needing to notify you or give you any kind of 'out,' and/or sue you with the proviso that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, you have to pay their legal costs.

I'd say that's a fairly good reason right there.

I don't think it can be legally enforced, though - To say that a party can't use an "Open Source" that is public domain, AFTER you are no longer under contractual obligation to them?

WotC might try to enforce that, but I'd like to see it stand up in court.

The problem is that by agreeing to the GSL, you have to pay all court costs yourself and waive your right to sue WotC for infringement as well. The whole thing makes it difficult for the small publisher to swallow the pill that is litigation.

But my point is that if WotC cancels the contract (GSL), then the former licensee is no longer under obligation to follow the mandates of the expired contract.

The GSL is a leash, nothing more, and WotC would have to be brainless to cancel it for anyone silly enough to sign it in the first place.

Thats like taking off your dog's collar and setting it free.

Once cancelled, it frees the 3rd party company from any of the contract's provisions... including the court costs.

They will never, EVER cancel the GSL for anyone, for that very reason.

But my point is that if WotC cancels the contract (GSL), then the former licensee is no longer under obligation to follow the mandates of the expired contract.

The GSL is a leash, nothing more, and WotC would have to be brainless to cancel it for anyone silly enough to sign it in the first place.

Thats like taking off your dog's collar and setting it free.

Once cancelled, it frees the 3rd party company from any of the contract's provisions... including the court costs.

They will never, EVER cancel the GSL for anyone, for that very reason.

Actually, read clause 11.2, which I am quoting below:

"11.2 Survival. Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (together with all other provisions that reasonably may be interpreted as surviving termination of this License) will survive the termination of this License."

Those clauses will survive the termination of the GSL. Section 6 is the one which prevents companies that sign the GSL from doing any OGL product. Basically, if you sign the GSL, your company will be legally under that clause forever. Btw, it is pretty common in contract law to have clauses survive the termination of that contract.

-Lisa

Lisa -

What are your plans for software to support your products? Obviously, Paizo intends to walk a different path than Wizards, but is there a future for Paizo in terms of software to "support and enhance" rather than "assimilate" the gaming system?

I see software playing a support role very well with 3.x systems.

Regards -
Monte

Lisa -

What are your plans for software to support your products? Obviously, Paizo intends to walk a different path than Wizards, but is there a future for Paizo in terms of software to "support and enhance" rather than "assimilate" the gaming system?

I see software playing a support role very well with 3.x systems.

Regards -
Monte

My apology - I didn't mean to hijack this thread ... please feel free to email a reply if you see fit or start another thread.

(Momentarily possessed by a fiend from the lower layers ...)

Actually, read clause 11.2, which I am quoting below:

"11.2 Survival. Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (together with all other provisions that reasonably may be interpreted as surviving termination of this License) will survive the termination of this License."

Ugh!

Nevermind.....

Who in their right mind would sign such a THING?!

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Actually, read clause 11.2, which I am quoting below:

"11.2 Survival. Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 (together with all other provisions that reasonably may be interpreted as surviving termination of this License) will survive the termination of this License."

Ugh!

Nevermind.....

Who in their right mind would sign such a THING?!

Exactly. It's kinda like putting your company on red and spinning the wheel, hoping it doesn't come up black.

-Lisa

Exactly. It's kinda like putting your company on red and spinning the wheel, hoping it doesn't come up black.

-Lisa

It's like putting your company on red and spinning, hoping they don't take red off the wheel.

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Exactly. It's kinda like putting your company on red and spinning the wheel, hoping it doesn't come up black.

-Lisa

It's like putting your company on red and spinning, hoping they don't take red off the wheel.

Now that is funny. Sadly true, but funny. :)

-Lisa

That is what I thought I had read.

As I understand it as well, should 3PP "X" publish a book with a Pirate Class, and WOTC publishes another book with a Pirate Class, and adds it to SRD, then 3PP "X" is responsible for noticing that and then immediately removing its product from sales.

Anything that any 3PP actually publishes can be mandated to be removed from sale at any time and with no warning. Imagine investing thousands of dollars in a product to fill a niche only to find your investment wasted.

It is insane to actually sign onto the GSL.

Instead I hope to see 3PPs flock to the Pathfinder brand and support it. That does make sense.

Have any 3PP's signed the GSL?

It almost sounds like the GSL is designed to discourage 3PP's from trying to write for 4e. It's apparent that although WotC is willing to let 3PP's publish, WotC intends to maintain complete control. One might use the term "Draconian" (unless they copyrighted it...)

It appears they want to be able to exert editorial contol "after the fact". If a 3PP puts something out and WotC decides they don't like it (or they want to do their own, as Krome points out), they can just kill the product and tell the 3PP to stop playing in the WotC sandbox - forever.

I'm not convinced that 100% of the GSL will be enforceable, however. A court might hold that parts of the contract are illegal. There was a ruling like that related to the Autocad drafting software. The Autocad agreement says that you can't sell your original copy of the software and manuals if you stop using it, you have to destroy it. But the software costs thousands. So there's a guy who resells used originals on eBay. AutoDesk tried to sue him, but the court ruled that they couldn't enforce the agreement because of the First Sale doctrine. Once the developer takes money for the original set of disks and manuals, the originals are property of the purchaser. The purchaser can dispose of the originals as they wish, and AutoDesk can't force them to destroy them. AutoDesk also can't take action against any subsequent sellers and purchasers as long as no illegal copies are made.

Obviously, the same legal precedents don't apply to the GSL, but I think it illustrates the fact that portions of contracts can be overruled in the courts. And an eBay merchant prevailed over a large software developer.

Have any 3PP's signed the GSL?

None of the major 3PPs have yet made any such announcement. None.

It almost sounds like the GSL is designed to discourage 3PP's from trying to write for 4e. It's apparent that although WotC is willing to let 3PP's publish, WotC intends to maintain complete control.

It appears they want to be able to exert editorial contol "after the fact". If a 3PP puts something out and WotC decides they don't like it (or they want to do their own, as Krome points out), they can just kill the product and tell the 3PP to stop playing in the WotC sandbox - forever.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

IMO, whoever signs Scott Rouse's and Lidda's paychecks are against open gaming but decided they 1) didn't want to take the PR hit by outright saying that there will be no free license and 2) should get 4E books into people's hands before letting 3PPs announce what they're going to do.

Imagine if back in Jan when WotC announced the 5K deal that 3PPs signed the NDA and then saw the GSL. Paizo would have announced Pathfinder RPG within days and Goodman and Necro and probably several other major companies would have announced Pathfinder compatable products soon after, taking all their fans (as well as those that saw the exodus and got the hint) with them. By stringing the RPG community along, WotC was able to retain a larger core customer base. And no this is not some grand conspiracy theory; all this would take is someone with any brains (which WotC has plenty of) to take one look at that license and say, "Don't you dare release that before the books."

Think I'm wrong? Name one company that would pay $5000 after seeing that license.

What do you think of the responses?

"Perfectly reasonable".

I don't think it can be legally enforced, though - To say that a party can't use an "Open Source" that is public domain, AFTER you are no longer under contractual obligation to them?

WotC might try to enforce that, but I'd like to see it stand up in court.

Actually, it would most likely hold up in court quite well. It is outlined in the GSL and the company signed that agreement. It's like signing ann NDA when you get hired at a job. It is in place, even after you move on to another company. The GSL is the same deal.

It almost sounds like the GSL is designed to discourage 3PP's from trying to write for 4e. It's apparent that although WotC is willing to let 3PP's publish, WotC intends to maintain complete control.

To me it sounds like the GSL was meant to allow individuals to legally write material for 4E, but to make it harder to make money doing so.

I'm not convinced that 100% of the GSL will be enforceable, however. A court might hold that parts of the contract are illegal. There was a ruling like that related to the Autocad drafting software. The Autocad agreement says that you can't sell your original copy of the software and manuals if you stop using it, you have to destroy it. But the software costs thousands. So there's a guy who resells used originals on eBay. AutoDesk tried to sue him, but the court ruled that they couldn't enforce the agreement because of the First Sale doctrine. Once the developer takes money for the original set of disks and manuals, the originals are property of the purchaser. The purchaser can dispose of the originals as they wish, and AutoDesk can't force them to destroy them. AutoDesk also can't take action against any subsequent sellers and purchasers as long as no illegal copies are made.

Obviously, the same legal precedents don't apply to the GSL, but I think it illustrates the fact that portions of contracts can be overruled in the courts. And an eBay merchant prevailed over a large software developer.

IIRC from browsing the GSL it contains a severability clause. For those who don't know what that means, a severability clause allows a court to "sever" offending parts of the particular document and enforce the rest of the document. In this case, severing one restriction on the GSL would not invalidate the rest of the GSL. So people hoping to violate the GSL would have take it apart bit by bit.

So even though you're talking about a software license, it's fairly relevant.

I'm not convinced that 100% of the GSL will be enforceable, however. A court might hold that parts of the contract are illegal. There was a ruling like that related to the Autocad drafting software. The Autocad agreement says that you can't sell your original copy of the software and manuals if you stop using it, you have to destroy it. But the software costs thousands. So there's a guy who resells used originals on eBay. AutoDesk tried to sue him, but the court ruled that they couldn't enforce the agreement because of the First Sale doctrine. Once the developer takes money for the original set of disks and manuals, the originals are property of the purchaser. The purchaser can dispose of the originals as they wish, and AutoDesk can't force them to destroy them. AutoDesk also can't take action against any subsequent sellers and purchasers as long as no illegal copies are made.

I don't think the First Sale doctrine is applicable to the GSL. My recollection is that the First Sale doctrine applies when you have a physical product and you attempt to restrict the ability to resell it down the line. It's viewed as anti-competitive because it interferes with your basic property rights. However, since the doctrine was created, companies have gotten more creative about getting around it (e.g., one way you can avoid it is by leasing your property rather than selling it).

I don't know how software IP works, but my vague understanding is that you are purchasing a license to use the software and not the software itself. That being said, I think the license is tied to the physical product, so you can transfer the license by transferring the physical product. That seems to be what the case you describe is about. Because the manufacturer was attempting to prevent the transfer of the physical product, the First Sale doctrine came into play.

So, if WotC issued a developer's kit to GSL signatories, the First Sale Doctrine would prevent them from stopping the resale of that kit, but I don't think it would apply to products produced under the GSL.

I don't think it can be legally enforced, though - To say that a party can't use an "Open Source" that is public domain, AFTER you are no longer under contractual obligation to them?

WotC might try to enforce that, but I'd like to see it stand up in court.

Well you are misrepresenting the situation. OGL content is OGL and always will be. You can always use that.

If you have a product line that you release with GSL licensed content you agree to give up the right to use OGL content for that product line. The contract is limited in scope and as such would likely be enforceable.

My point (which others have already proven false, BTW) was that you could go back to OGL after WotC pulls the plug on your license, because you are no longer under obligation of a license that has been terminated.

However, a 'survival' clause has been pointed out to me that basically means "even if we take away your sandbox, you can't go and play in a different one... EVER."

That one clause makes an already 'ebil' document so much more sinister. They already give you nothing, except a crappy logo they force upon you, and then make you give up your 'first born' (practically) to them, and every child you ever have... and if you marry someone else, they don't let you have anymore children.

Why would anyone in their right mind give up all of their company's legal rights and get NOTHING in return (except the silly logo)?

Thats like falling asleep in Jeffrey Dahmer's house when he's half-starved to death...

My point (which others have already proven false, BTW) was that you could go back to OGL after WotC pulls the plug on your license, because you are no longer under obligation of a license that has been terminated.

Well, you still CAN create an all-new product line, and produce OGL material in your new line of business. But you can't take any of your 4E material and back-convert it to your new OGL line, nor can you use any of your old OGL material that was rendered invalid by signing the GSL. You have to start completely from scratch.

Of course, good luck doing that, since your revenues just dropped to zero, and you just ate a loss on all backstock. Plus, it probably cost you something to have the backstock destroyed. Plus, it's tough to get any work done while quietly sobbing in the corner wondering what just happened.

Why would anyone in their right mind give up all of their company's legal rights and get NOTHING in return (except the silly logo)?

The GSL grants you permission to use certain amounts of WotC IP that are denoted in the SRD, and it allows you to use certain branding on your product. To say you get 'nothing' in return is far from true. If you are releasing a product for 4th edition your product will be more successful under the GSL than if you published it unlicensed.

To be honest the GSL is much better than the situation was back in the day. It's just a matter of 2 steps forward, one step back. Some of us just refuse to take that step back.

I don't think the First Sale doctrine is applicable to the GSL. My recollection is that the First Sale doctrine applies when you have a physical product and you attempt to restrict the ability to resell it down the line. It's viewed as anti-competitive because it interferes with your basic property rights. However, since the doctrine was created, companies have gotten more creative about getting around it (e.g., one way you can avoid it is by leasing your property rather than selling it).

I don't know how software IP works, but my vague understanding is that you are purchasing a license to use the software and not the software itself. That being said, I think the license is tied to the physical product, so you can transfer the license by transferring the physical product. That seems to be what the case you describe is about. Because the manufacturer was attempting to prevent the transfer of the physical product, the First Sale doctrine came into play.

So, if WotC issued a developer's kit to GSL signatories, the First Sale Doctrine would prevent them from stopping the resale of that...

While Sebastian is a lawyer and I'm not, I still wanted to add my assent to his interpretation here: first sale relates to physical exchange of product, and your rights to sell what you've boought to another person.

As far as software goes, what I have heard about First Sale in relation to software is this: a series of questions will be asked, related to if the purchaser paid, if they received a physical copy of the software, if ongoing fees are paid, and what happens to the phsyical copy at the termination of the license, and probably more I've forgotten. If the end effect is that the transaction seems exactly or almost exactly like purchasing the item, it will likely fall under First Sale even if the company claims it was a license rather than a sale. Leasing is more likely to NOT fall under First Sale.

I concur they would have trouble stopping resale of a development kit, but I plead ignorance as to what legal strategies could be tried to prevent it.