Vance mentioned that Clark has posted some on the WotC boards and I found a few comments. I thought I would post a few of the things he said (in context, as much as possible without driving myself crazy) (all emphasis mine):
I don't get this at all. The magazine licenses expired and an extension was granted to the benefit of Paizo. The Ravenloft license expired and the licensees were given almost a year to sell their inventory. I don't recall how the expiration of the Dragonlance license went, but I haven't heard anything bad and concrete.
None of this involves anything the least bit immoral on WotC's part. There were contracts that expired and were not renewed. Is that unethical? I don't get it.
This is a candy colored, rose tinted version of what happened.
For people in the know, its probably not best to hold up the ending of the Dungeon and Dragon mags as an example of Wizards' good will. That was a bad situation. Despite how people might want to spin it today. Dont buy the spin.
Clark
Perhaps because I am a lawyer and have licensed content before the GSL isnt as bad as everyone is making it out. Are there parts I dont like? Yes. Are there things that, if the change, would make me stop using it? Yes. Are there things that I think legal forced in there that have no business being there and actually work AGAINST the purposes the license allegedly exists to serve? Yes. Do I think the GSL is a horse by committee--aka, a mule? Yes. But lets not pretend it is the most onerous thing ever. It isnt. And anyone who has ever deal with a license that has approval provisions and pre-release content review, and veto power, boy oh boy that is 100x more annoying than anything in the GSL.
My beef with the license is that it is a total, abject failure. It absolutely fails, on its face, to achieve its own goals. It actually provides a disincentive for the very people for whom it should provide an incentive. That says there are too many competing interests involved in its creation. It tries to serve too many masters and in the end doesnt serve any of them. Its a shame, too.
That said, I love Scott and Linae. And I have great respect for how they have listened in the past and I am hopeful they will listen to the publishers now.
Think about this--everyone is worried that the "modify at will" provisions will mean that WotC will make "bad" changes. How great would it be if one of the first changes was not to screw people (as many speculate) but was actually to clarify or change the license for the better? What kind of message would that send? The right one I think.
In my view, its all going to come down to the ego of the authors of the license. Will they have the collective balls to say, "you know what, for various reasons the license we wrote doesnt do what we want. so we are going to change it so that it does." or maybe they wont and they will say "we wrote it, thats how it is, quit complaining." its all going to come down to how much Wizards is willing to change what they have done and make the license more usable by those who they should want to use it. And my guess is that they will step up. This process, while full of wrong turns, has also had a lot of responsiveness by Scott and Linae. We have pointed out things and they have responded and changed them. So I am hopeful that this is just another step in that process. Lets not forget, the license can be changed --for the good-- just as easily as it could be changed for the bad.
If you want to develop a campaign setting for use with 4E, there is also the possibility of doing so under a seperate license that you negotiate with WotC. The existance of the GSL does not preculde a company signing a seperate license with WotC allowing them more freedom for a specific campaign setting.I dont really see that as a viable alternative.
No one is responding to my emails about requests for seperate licenses, and I am someone who has done stuff with Wizards in the past and I have been a friendly and responsible caretaker of content. If I cant even get a call back, I'm not sure who will.
Its pretty sad day if no one is talking to Clark.
I guess there goes my theory about alien abduction! :P
Thanks McCoy. I know Scott posted on ENWorld about going on vacation for a week or two, dunno about Linae. :)
PS. McCoy, mind if I post this over at ENWorld? I bet a number of posters over there would like to see this as well, although if you want the scoop, go right ahead. :)
Edit: A clone! But that could only mean the Reverse Vampires! :O!
|
Will they have the collective balls...
Unfortunately, wotc said 'we're taking our collective balls and going home, so you can't play any more!'
I am personally very proud of Clark, and anyone who plays 4e should try to stay informed as to how the company (wotc) that created that game (4e) is treating other companies in the industry. The remarks by Clark are just another example of 3pp being mistreated or ignored.
...Just my 2cp
I've said before, and I continue to believe, WotC is trying to kill the competition. The GSL seems to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to conceal that agenda.
My two cents.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've said before, and I continue to believe, WotC is trying to kill the competition. The GSL seems to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to conceal that agenda.
My two cents.
Technically, I don't think transparent objects provide concealment...
Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.
Will they have the collective balls...Unfortunately, wotc said 'we're taking our collective balls and going home, so you can't play any more!'
I am personally very proud of Clark, and anyone who plays 4e should try to stay informed as to how the company (wotc) that created that game (4e) is treating other companies in the industry. The remarks by Clark are just another example of 3pp being mistreated or ignored.
...Just my 2cp
I think 4e players should be more concerned at how (badly) wotc treats it's customers ... case in point the 4e character sheet supplement.
Technically, I don't think transparent objects provide concealment...
Tell that to WotC :/
...case in point the 4e character sheet supplement.
BTW -- what character sheet supplement?
BTW -- what character sheet supplement?
This one!
Darn, I thought I'd missed something useful.
I knew about this insult. I'm not eager to pay $10 for something that's online for free.
Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.
Did Scotty ever give out the formula for that?
BTW -- what character sheet supplement?This one!Darn, I thought I'd missed something useful.
I knew about this insult. I'm not eager to pay $10 for something that's online for free.
The character folder and power cards are useful(not $10 useful. Maybe worth $5), they just didn't put in enough character sheets. I'm guessing they intended to get each player to buy his own set.
|
|
You left out this last part:
As for your point about 'is it less valuable IP'? The answer, so far, seems to be resoundingly yes since everyone that's talked about doing anything for the GSL is refusing to put their major settings and IP under it and promised to do 'something else' - even, and most notably, Necromancer games.Please dont speak for me. Our 4E products will rule and will be full of awesome IP that is just as worth protecting as any of our old IP. You will not get second rate stuff from us, period. The reason for not porting old stuff is because I dont like the never go back provision and I dont want to give up the flexibility of the use of that content. I also want Wizards to clarify that native 4E products DO NOT have the never go back provision (though that is still needing clarification).
Clark
|
The character folder and power cards are useful(not $10 useful. Maybe worth $5), they just didn't put in enough character sheets. I'm guessing they intended to get each player to buy his own set.Because NO ONE could have a copier-scanner... actually, this makes no sense for a released product when you think about it. They should have given the character sheet away as a PDF and have done with it.
I agree. The 3.5e character sheets were great, and impossible to print out on many home printers. The 4e ones (from what I've heard) are pointless.
There are so many good fan-made character sheets online that I've always been a bit surprised that people buy character sheets to begin with.
|
|
You left out this last part:Unfortunately (for 4E supporters, and Clark's blood pressure), that last part was actually one of the FIRST parts. His tone got progressively worse as the threads continued.
No, I dont think so....posts numbers when up as I scrolled down.
BUT Wotc's forums are down again, so we'll have to wait on that.
Edit: Maybe if it were something like translucent allumnium, it could provide cover.Why... would that be worth somethin to ya?
((sorry, could not resist Star Trek IV quote....))
Jason Bulmahn
Dork...
Ahem, it's transparent aluminum.
Rhoth
bigger dork (but not a trekkie)
|
|
Granted, though, it was more middling. But he had a LOT snarkier comments (already posted) past that one, and they're seperated by a number of days. I'm just saying that I wouldn't cite that Clark's statement there was indicative of his continued 4E/GSL support.
Right. He was clear on some support but over all the GSL isnt what he wants. And his emails are unanswered. But he'll be doing something.
I don't get it, "Clark Lives"... his most recent post on the Wizards Forum is from June 27th, almost a month old. Were some additional messages from him on that thread deleted?
|
|
Aww.. screw it.. this is a rumor, so treat it as such.
But, on middling authority, I've been told that WotC actually legally threatened Clark, personally, over terms of the GSL and the continuance of any other product lines, and that's what's causing all the delays.
I do not know if this is true, and Clark has not (and should not) verify this. I have also heard of other cases of the same sort of antics coming from WotC's offices in regards to 4E material.
That's why (according to this rumor) there's been such a huge chilling effect on announcements and licencees.
meaning what? If he produces Tengar manor for 4e lets say, he couldnt make Tomb of Horrors for pathfinder?
There are so many good fan-made character sheets online that I've always been a bit surprised that people buy character sheets to begin with.
For those that haven't seen them, check out the character sheets by Shado -- they're spectacular!
|
|
If this is true.. and that's a big if. It was that either Necromancer did EVERYTHING as a GSL product, under WotC's approval, or nothing at all.
And, as I said, this wasn't the only direction from which the rumor flowed. (And, sadly, echoes a comment from WotC a couple of months ago about the nature of the GSL.)
Ouch. Now I see why, possibly, Clark has been quiet. That kind of attitude comes out about Wotc? Another PR disaster on their hands.
Right. He was clear on some support but over all the GSL isnt what he wants. And his emails are unanswered. But he'll be doing something.Aww.. screw it.. this is a rumor, so treat it as such.
But, on middling authority, I've been told that WotC actually legally threatened Clark, personally, over terms of the GSL and the continuance of any other product lines, and that's what's causing all the delays.
I do not know if this is true, and Clark has not (and should not) verify this. I have also heard of other cases of the same sort of antics coming from WotC's offices in regards to 4E material.
That's why (according to this rumor) there's been such a huge chilling effect on announcements and licencees.
If that's true, how much farther do we have to go before we start seeing T$R all over again?
4th edition may or may not be a great game, but I can't even bring myself to take a look at it right now, in part because my group won't be switching until our current campaign is over which won't be for at least a year or more, but mostly because WotCs inept marketing and legal departments (and overall brain trust truth be told) are seriously making me not want to give them my money.
...how much farther do we have to go before we start seeing T$R all over again?
Are you sure we're not already there?
|
Are you sure we're not already there?Some have said that since 3.5 .. but, yeah, there are a lot of much more worrying parallels these days.
Heh. At least with TSR you could get support for everything under the sun, despite sometimes marginal or shoddy quality.
Now? Points of Light or make a homebrew! Buy a core book every few months or deal with missing elements!
I would rather have TSR than WotC right now. *shudder*
I find it very weird that Clark has been silent so long.
It's not his style - unless his job gets really hectic.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
His job is really hectic.
There are also niggling details about how handle the Paizo/Necro partnership under the atmosphere of the terrible GSL that need to be worked out. I don't think any publisher could have anticipated an open-ended contract that could be changed at any time by WotC that might force you to pulp all of your products, and there are several additional ugly surprises in that contract as well.
I have certainly heard nothing about Wizards threatening Necromancer (or any other publisher, for that matter) over this stuff, so I think it's fair to bury that rumor in the ground and pee on the grave.
--Erik
|
|
For those that haven't seen them, check out the character sheets by Shado -- they're spectacular!Yeah, check out the dorkus-maximus "I am dominated" sign one of the players has by their character sheet. Should they have labled this game 4E 4Kids?
That is fan produced material. It is nothing more than one in a myriad of things produced.
Pax, get a grip and stop being such a jerk.
There are also niggling details about how handle the Paizo/Necro partnership under the atmosphere of the terrible GSL that need to be worked out.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings if the GSL helped convince Necromancer to produce more stuff for Pathfinder.
Just sayin'....
Uh, what? Does WotC own nearly all game companies? No. They are not monopolists.
Meh. Companies have been found to be "monopolies" (for purposes of anti-trust law) with market share in the 55% range. Not saying WotC is one, but you don't have to own ALL of a market to be one :)