|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I'm really torn on the OGL. On one hand, it produced awesome stuff like Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, Fantasycraft (and its predecessor, Spycraft) and Conan d20, but on the other hand we got Deadlands d20 and other d20 conversions of games that didn't need any converting.
Also, as far the industry is concerned, the OGL was, at the time, completely without precedent and even today, aside for a handful of indie games (including Spirit of the Century/Fate) and a few OSR games (OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord spring to mind), very few RPGs have any kind of licence for third party support. Paizo and WotC are the only two major corporations with any kind of licences for third party material for their games. Fantasy Flight doesn't have any kind of licence for producing third party material for their extremely successful 40k RPGs.
Theoretically, there is nothing preventing anyone from making such material, because game mechanics can't be copyrighted, but at the same time one would have to really skirt around the fact that the material is compatible with, say, Dark Heresy, by using prose like "Compatible with role-playing games set in the dark future of the fortieth millenium" and watching out not to use any words and phrases that would be considered Product Identity. (i.e. no Space Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard, or pretty much anything)
But yeah, lots of people into D&D seem to think that because 3e was the biggest game at its time and it had an open licence that such a thing is the norm in the industry, and then denigrate WotC for dropping support for the OGL with 4e. The thing is, WotC has the GSL which, while not as open as the OGL, is a lot more than what most major players in the industry have as far as third party support is considered.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For reals? We're still whining about the evils of WotC and rehashing the tired old 4e arguments? Isn't it enough that the edition was less than successful? Does any of that even matter anymore?
Those of you who are still crying about how 4e was announced, how 4e spits on the legacy of D&D, etc.need to get over it already. Get a hobby. Maybe Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... here's an insight....
...From what I'm hearing... they haven't got a game.
I'm not worried about download issues-I'm not giving that company a single ounce of my insight or experience.
I'm not interested in Sixth Edition, or Seventh, or Fifth-I'm completely finished with anything coming from that company.
Further, they've demonstrated:
>They can cancel Dungeon and Dragon magazines in a moment's notice.
>They can cull all the legacy AD&D module .PDFs overnight
>They can design a game that isn't in step with the spirit of it's origins, history, traditions, or culture
>They can fire their designers every Thanksgiving
>They can advertise using nasty messaging toward "senior" gamers i.e. grognards, and , neo-grognards
>They cannot, to save their lives, anticipate high load on their servers when releasing information nor take appropriate action to correct it
>They can fill the industry with poor quality splat books
>They can rally the gamer-based with intention to split, divide and conquer when it suits their financial interests
>They created, and continue to foster a hostile rules-lawyer style of gamist play that draws support from their Magic the Gathering background, and is further compounded by ritual college-like 4-year cycles of repeatedly printing and publishing the same material over and over again in different ways, while gouging the general gaming community
>They can stop providing free supporting content when hiding it behind a subscription price puts free money in their pockets.
>They renounced Gary G., and wouldn't even speak with him when he sat alive at GENCON on Gygax street, but then paid platitudes to him when they decide to reprint the 1e AD&D DMG and PHB.Therefore: they will not receive a single word of support from me.
D&D neXt is little more than the death knell of 4e support, and the revelation of their own continued greed, neglect, and disconnect from the gaming community.
Just reposting this, because every once in a while it's nice to remind everyone that this is the sort of community where a post like the one above can be publicly favorited by three other people, and given a "^ here here," (sic) by another. All in a forum where attacks on other companies in the industry are ostensibly not allowed.
The hardest part about being a fan of Paizo is having to reconcile being a part of the Paizo fanbase.
Scott bro. Paizo has a huge fanbase. It is what it is and it aint what it aint. I have had discussions on genocide, ethnic cleansing, the present war, and religion that went more smoothly then i would ever expect 4e and d&d next discussions to go.
If you want it to go away, look away and stop pimpslapping the dissenters with the Wotc Avenger.
And that means that we shouldn't try to improve the situation? I'd much prefer it if mentioning that I'm a Paizo fan in mixed gaming company didn't carry a few of the connotations that it does.
Tone and delivery are not separate from the message itself. There's a major difference in saying "I think you're odd." on a message board post than writing it on stone chucked through the person's window.Back to flagging the posts then.Always the best strategy when one objects to tone rather than substance.
I didn't mean they were unrelated. What I meant was that if your post isn't addressing the actual substantive point raised and are just telling the other poster their tone is objectionable, it's very unlikely do do anything and isn't going to help matters.
I think flagging and ignoring low content, inflammatory posts is nearly always better than responding to them (even if for no other reason than because that's what the forum owners have requested we do).
If the OGL was a huge success then every rpg would have one. We jave a few yet it has not been adopted by every rpg company. Many are still closed source as opposed to open source in their material.
I think your analysis is really lacking something here. The same business plan won't work for everyone. An OGL could work really well for an industry leader, but may be less likely to help a game with a small market. People have to believe there's a significant benefit to hitching their wagon to the license, and that's more likely to be true with bigger games than smaller ones.
|
Just reposting this, because every once in a while...
^ here here.
Seriously, though. Companies always have CRAZY legalistic tendencies. They do it to protect themselves, at least for the most part. I really don't care if people hate WotC for X reason or Y reason. People do that for EVERY company. You hear it all the time.
I hate Wal-Mart! I hate Gamestop! I hate... etc., etc., etc., and usually these people have somewhat decent reasons to dislike a company.
The fact, however, is that if the company puts out a good product, people will buy it, and if I have the opportunity to help get a good product on the market, I'll take it.
Besides, what's Hasbro gonna do? Sue me for all the money I don't have?
|
I think your analysis is really lacking something here. The same business plan won't work for everyone. An OGL could work really well for an industry leader, but may be less likely to help a game with a small market. People have to believe there's a significant benefit to hitching their wagon to the license, and that's more likely to be true with bigger games than smaller ones.
Good point. All that I'm saying is that the OGL while successful for some companies won't work for everyone or be wanted by everyone imo. Too often I hear "if the next edtion of D&D does no have an OGL it's doomed to fail" and that is probalby not the case at all. Wotc opened a big can of worms with the OGL and it was not all entirely in their favor. So I would be surprsied if we see another OGl with 5E. If we do I expected it to be much more restricitve. Nor do I see the rest of the industry jumping on board something like an OGL.
I would also like to point out that there are multiple ways to measure the success of the OGL. I can think of a few off the top of my head.
1) Financial - did it generate sufficient revenue to be worthwhile. As outsiders, we really don't have much insight into this.
2) Marketing/Mindshare - given the breadth of companies taking a stab at OGL materials and amount of product available, I doubt any edition of D&D other than 1st had this degree of success.
3) Political/Legal - One of the reasons for the OGL was to make sure that the game could never be trapped in litigation thanks to the financial failure of any owning company. As it turns out, this probably won't be necessary. But if Hasbro ever shelves the property, one edition of the game is, nevertheless, always out there. The game truly has become more than the company that owns it.
|
|
I would also like to point out that there are multiple ways to measure the success of the OGL. I can think of a few off the top of my head.
1) Financial - did it generate sufficient revenue to be worthwhile. As outsiders, we really don't have much insight into this.
Well, for who, and over what time period? It may have had an effect of bosting the sales of 3e in the short term, due to the amount of support for the rules. But when people starting producing variant rules you don't need the rulebooks WotC produced, suddenly you have rivals using your IP with impunity. Rivals to whom your customers can transfer to very easily given the overall comptibility with your own IP. The most obvious example of this is Paizo, and while the figures are hard to come by I think it can be agreed that it represents, at least, a significant competitive challenge to WotC.
2) Marketing/Mindshare - given the breadth of companies taking a stab at OGL materials and amount of product available, I doubt any edition of D&D other than 1st had this degree of success.
Maybe. But who was making the money from the IP - WotC, or someone else? Again, the OGL has probably eroded WotC market share in the longer term - Paizo again.
3) Political/Legal - One of the reasons for the OGL was to make sure that the game could never be trapped in litigation thanks to the financial failure of any owning company. As it turns out, this probably won't be necessary. But if Hasbro ever shelves the property, one edition of the game is, nevertheless, always out there. The game truly has become more than the company that owns it.
Really? Why would the owner of the IP do that? It's worth money, you don't give it away unless you expect to make more money doing so (the basic, and in my view flawed, premise of the OGL). I wasn't an act of generosity. And what happens on liquiditation isn't really the going concern company's problem, it's the creditors and the liquidators.
I think the problem is you see WotC as some sort of charity, safeguarding the sacred brand that is D&D for future generations. It isn't, it's a publishing company that seeks to extract as much value from its property as it can. So your criteria on the success of the OGL don't come from the point of view of the owners of the IP, but from the users. Sure, anyone getting someone else's IP for free is going to be very happy. But I don't believe that, commercially, it was helpful to WotC to do this as it fostered competition which it now has to fight. So, funnily enough, they don't want to go down that route again.
On the other hand, the competitive challenge to which WotC has been subjected has led them to up their game quite a lot in terms of the quality of product they produce and their marketing initiative. I'm personally disappointed that 4e now has a restricted shelflife given the recent improvements, but maye 5e will be amazing (who knows?).
|
|
As far as an OGL for 5E is concerned, WotC is so concerned about protecting their ideas that they're requiring an agreement that gives them total rights to everything we tell them in the feedback.
Kind of reminds me of the original GSL, with its clause about IP that Wizards could co-opt by creating something similar to it.
While I have no problem with the legal wording of the playtest agreement, it makes me believe that WotC has no intention of ever issuing an OGL for 5E. Their lawyers seem to be paranoid about IP theft.
I'm sure you're right. The OGL seems to have been a mixed blessing for WotC. It seems to work for Paizo because they don't really sell rules, they sell adventures. WotC never operated like that, so giving away the rules wasn't really beneficial to them. I'm agnostic on whether this is good overall for the customer - the OGL was always a sideshow for me, I didn't buy very much OGL stuff at all, but others have different experiences.
Just reposting this, because every once in a while it's nice to remind everyone that this is the sort of community where a post like the one above can be publicly favorited by three other people, and given a "^ here here," (sic) by another. All in a forum where attacks on other companies in the industry are ostensibly not allowed.
The hardest part about being a fan of Paizo is having to reconcile being a part of the Paizo fanbase.
Its the main reason I stopped buying Paizo products a few months back. Would come here to see when the pirate and Numerian stuff was coming and get nothing but 4E/WOTC bashing. Being called a corporate shill because I happen to prefer 4E. Even in threads located in other sections of this board. There are better places to spend my money.
Back to the thread, I haven't done the playtest yet myself because getting my group to even send emails, let alone sign up for anything on the internet would be a feat worthy the ancient Greek epics.
3) Political/Legal - One of the reasons for the OGL was to make sure that the game could never be trapped in litigation thanks to the financial failure of any owning company. As it turns out, this probably won't be necessary. But if Hasbro ever shelves the property, one edition of the game is, nevertheless, always out there. The game truly has become more than the company that owns it.Really? Why would the owner of the IP do that? It's worth money, you don't give it away unless you expect to make more money doing so (the basic, and in my view flawed, premise of the OGL). I wasn't an act of generosity. And what happens on liquiditation isn't really the going concern company's problem, it's the creditors and the liquidators.
I think the problem is you see WotC as some sort of charity, safeguarding the sacred brand that is D&D for future generations. It isn't, it's a publishing company that seeks to extract as much value from its property as it can. So your criteria on the success of the OGL don't come from the point of view of the owners of the IP, but from the users. Sure, anyone getting someone else's IP for free is going to be very happy. But I don't believe that, commercially, it was helpful to WotC to do this as it fostered competition which it now has to fight. So, funnily enough, they don't want to go down that route again.
On the other hand, the competitive challenge to which WotC has been subjected has led them to up their game quite a lot in terms of the quality of product they produce and their marketing initiative. I'm personally disappointed that 4e now has a restricted shelflife given the recent improvements, but maye 5e will be amazing (who knows?).
Funny thing about reality, it often upsets preconceived notions. Keeping D&D free from being lost in litigation was one of the cited rationales for the OGL according to Dancey and Adkison. And that means it did come from the point of view of the owners of the IP. Clearly they also had a certain amount of market dominance and mindshare in their intentions as well, but most people do have complex motivations behind what they're doing. Making money, taking over stewardship of the brand they loved, making a huge public relations splash in the industry, demonstrating bold leadership, and saving the game that started the RPG industry. Those motivations were pretty much all there with the acquisition of TSR, the publishing of 3rd edition, and making it OGL.
It seems to work for Paizo because they don't really sell rules, they sell adventures.
Alas, if only that were still the case.
The hardest part about being a fan of Paizo is having to reconcile being a part of the Paizo fanbase.
Its the main reason I stopped buying Paizo products a few months back. Would come here to see when the pirate and Numerian stuff was coming and get nothing but 4E/WOTC bashing...even in threads located in other sections of this board. There are better places to spend my money.
If that exchange doesn't turn some Paizo heads then something is seriously wrong.
All sides are equally as abrasive.
The fact that some continue to push the above as true is only contributing to the problem.
All sides are not equally abrasive. All participants are not equally hostile. All arguments are not made equal.
It seems to work for Paizo because they don't really sell rules, they sell adventures.The pathfinder core rule books have been selling like hotcakes with sales increasing with each printing. They really sell rules now :)
Well, their own rules don't sell nearly as well, but the modified 3.5 SRD (PF Core) still sells amazingly, especially with the great art by WAR. Do you really think any of the Ultimate books (which often contain new rules and options) selling anything close to that?
Thank you, Scott, for "correcting" my "misconception".
You made my point excellently. :)
Your point was not that both sides try to correct misconceptions. Your point was that both sides comport themselves in equal manner. That's false. One side goes out of its way to remain civil because it has a vested interest in keeping its own section of the forums as pleasant as possible. The other side does not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it laughable how her opinion is supposed to scare paizo, but derogatory opinions about Wotc are dismissed as beneath Wotc's concern. Hypocrisy much?
The difference is that Stayglyte likes Paizo's products and is being put off by its hostile, insular, tribal fan base; meanwhile, those who offer derogatory opinions of WotC here aren't their customers anyway, and probably have better things they could be doing with their time.
Someone has an over-inflated opinion of their own self worth
I'm wasting a Sunday afternoon arguing on the internet with you. I couldn't over-inflate my self-worth if I tried.
