Here is an announcement from Scott Rouse:
Quote The Rouse wrote:
Now how many servings of crow should we be preparing??
Here I was arguing endlessly whether or not what was being assumed was a poison pill truly was, and whether or not the "poison pill" would even matter in the long term. And now it isn't even so.
Crow indeed.
It's certainly nice that they partially relented. I'm not sure "crow" is for dinner - they are still abandoning open gaming themselves, they're only trying to prevent it in others on a product line basis instead of a whole-comapny basis. Not as bad as it could be certainly. Not really a victory for openness, but two steps away is better than three steps away IMO.
"Relented" implies that they changed something. Do you know for a fact that the GSL has been changed?
"Relented" implies that they changed something. Do you know for a fact that the GSL has been changed?
No, of course not, they are preventing anyone from knowing anything about any of their deliberations by not releasing the license and relying on vague Q&As. But what else takes that long to do? "No, it's by product line" could have been posted two weeks ago and forestalled a lot of the ill will. But it took two weeks.
I claim victory for the pressure of the free press... You're welcome to prove "for a fact" that's not the case!
You're welcome to prove "for a fact" that's not the case!
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4201722&postcount=65
If I can do that, then what restrictions would there be? Could I include the basic stat blocks and power summaries where necessary for an included monster or NPC?
WotC still sells PDFs of really old stuff through online vendors, so they obviously aren't (yet) just killing them dead as far as out-of-print is concerned.
I have to say, it's almost (I did say "almost", I'm not really a conspiracy nut) like WotC is trying to cripple both GenCon, and any of their competitors/3rd party publishers that they can. I can understand some of the reasons for WotC not being at GC, but for those of us who were really looking forward to getting into an RPGA game, or a 4e game run or submitted by WotC, it hurts. For 3rd parties who paid for the early license and chance to get the rules early, it hurts. And now, they can't even sell 4e product until October? Nope, can't say I like this at all. But, then again, maybe things will change dramatically between now and August, and all will be well at GC and in the industry. Stranger things have happened.
For 3rd parties who paid for the early license and chance to get the rules early, it hurts.
Nobody paid for an early license. There had been discussion about a $5000 fee fo an early peek at the license, but that never happened.
I have to say that the one thing I really don't like is that 3rd party vendors cannot sell any 4e products until Oct 1st.
From a business perspective, I can understand the reasoning. WotC wants to be the only 4e producers for serveral months. WotC has invested time and money into developing and marketing 4e. As the only 4e provider for several months, they will have the opportunity to recoup those expenses quicker than if the 3pp were also in the picture.
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4201722&postcount=65
Now I will give you the rest of the story. Apparently, Linnae knew who gave Clark his information (go to the same thread) and Clark's information was correct according to how that person interpreted the so-called conversion clause.
Moral. Apparently the GSL's "conversion clause" can be interpreted either as a "product line" restriction (and we still don't have the definition of product line) OR a "per company" restriction. So while the GSL might technically not have been changed, that's not at all the same thing as saying the policy wasn't changed. Now that the FAQ is up and in print, it can be taken to court as proof that Wotc meant a 'per product-line exclusion' rather than a 'per company' exclusion for this version of the GSL. Until then, apparentlythe clause was vague and vague in legal contracts equals bad.
-Polaris
Where did you learn this, and can you share your source with the rest of the class?
Follow the EN world link that Green Knight included and read it all the way to the very end. It comes out in that thread including the comment by Linnae that I alluded to.
-Polaris
Apparently the GSL's "conversion clause" can be interpreted either as a "product line" restriction (and we still don't have the definition of product line) OR a "per company" restriction.
The link you provided does not support this statement.
Oh, man, you have a knack for seeing the worst in innocuous statements. The quote to which you obliquely refer is from Linae in post 196:
[indent]I have a LOT of respect for Clark's "informant." They had a different interpretation of the license. It happens. I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong, rather had a different take. We've since cleared things up.[/indent]
She never said his interpretation was legitimate. She wanted to save a colleague some embarrassment by saying we wasn't "flat out wrong". (This is confirmed by Clark/Orcus' statement in post 199 that Linae's statement is clarifying that his informant "is not evil". (This, because some posters had been calling for the informant's head -- in jest.)
That said, the informant was in fact mistaken. He mistook "product line" for "company". That is wrong. But as Linae said, the GSL was clear that it is by "product line". And Clark himself said that when his informant told him the restriction was "per company", Clark believes the informant meant to say "per product line".
For those who just want to read the "official" posts, Linae's posts are at 65, 135, 143, 196, 198
Clark/Orcus' posts are at 154, 155, 174, 199
So while the GSL might technically not have been changed, that's not at all the same thing as saying the policy wasn't changed.
Yes. Yes it is. Nothing in the thread you cited indicates there was a policy change as to the "interpretation" of the GSL. The most that can be said is that Clark's informant meant to convey a per-product-line restriction and erroneously stated per-company.
Nobody has said the clause was "vague". The problem was of miscommunication, not vague contract terms.
I note you are now 0-4 for predictions. (The OGL will be bad for RPGs -- There will not be a GSL -- The GSL will have a per-company exclusion clause -- The outrage caused the GSL to be edited).
The link you provided does not support this statement.
Oh, man, you have a knack for seeing the worst in innocuous statements. The quote to which you obliquely refer is from Linae in post 196:
[indent]I have a LOT of respect for Clark's "informant." They had a different interpretation of the license. It happens. I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong, rather had a different take. We've since cleared things up.[/indent]
She never said his interpretation was legitimate. She wanted to save a colleague some embarrassment by saying we wasn't "flat out wrong". (This is confirmed by Clark/Orcus' statement in post 199 that Linae's statement is clarifying that his informant "is not evil". (This, because some posters had been calling for the informant's head -- in jest.)
That is just flat out wrong. In the first place I used the word "apparently". In the second place, she says "I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong". That directly implies that they got it at least partially right which directly implies (as several EN world posters pointed out) that the GSL could apparently be read both ways in the original legalese.
That said, the informant was in fact mistaken. He mistook "product line" for "company". That is wrong. But as Linae said, the GSL was clear that it is by "product line". And Clark himself said that when his informant told him the restriction was "per company", Clark believes the informant meant to say "per product line".
For those who just want to read the "official" posts, Linae's posts are at 65, 135, 143, 196, 198
Clark/Orcus' posts are at 154, 155, 174, 199
Nothing in there shows I am incorrect. Nothing. It is actually very consistant with a vague clause in the GSL that took Wotc fourteen days to decide exactly what is meant (and Linnae does obliquely refer to that). That means that there was at least some doubt within Wotc exactly what the 'conversion clause' meant. So what I am saying is not out of line and not disproven by any stretch.
Yes. Yes it is. Nothing in the thread you cited indicates there was a policy change as to the "interpretation" of the GSL. The most that can be said is that Clark's informant meant to convey a per-product-line restriction and erroneously stated per-company.
Nobody has said the clause was "vague". The problem was of miscommunication, not vague contract terms.
I never said that they did. However, a "vague" term (and I am not the first one to say so) is consistant with what happened. If so, this would also explain Wotc's apparent reluctance to post an FAQ on this (it took 14 days). Why? Because an FAQ can be taken to court as proof of a particular interpretation of terms in the GSL.
-Polaris
In the first place I used the word "apparently".
Nothing in that thread makes your position "apparent".
In the second place, she says "I wouldn't say they got it flat out wrong". That directly implies that they got it at least partially right
"Directly implies" is an oxymoron.
The context of those posts makes clear that your inference is inaccurate. Linae was simply trying to dismiss the idea that her colleague lied. "Not flat out wrong" is not the same as "partly right". It means he wasn't intentionally wrong, which is exactly what Clark (the guy whose statement you flogged for two weeks) thinks occurred.
which directly implies (as several EN world posters pointed out) that the GSL could apparently be read both ways in the original legalese.
What posters made such a point and in which posts in that thread? I'm wondering because I have a guess as to which of the EnWorld users is you, and I want to know if that's the person you're going to cite to substantiate your post on this board.
Nothing in there shows I am incorrect.
You cited the thread as evidence that you are affirmatively correct and the thread doesn't do that.
It is actually very consistant with a vague clause in the GSL that took Wotc fourteen days to decide exactly what is meant (and Linnae does obliquely refer to that).
As she and others explain, it took 14 days because Scott Rouse was out of the office for seven days, and then they met to make sure that the language was not unclear and they concluded it wasn't, and then they had to get corporate approval for the FAQ. There is nothing unusual there.
So what I am saying is not out of line and not disproven by any stretch.
In the future, when you cite a thread as evidence, it would help if you cite a thread that "proves" your point, rather than one that "doesn't disprove" it. I can cite many threads that "don't disprove" how wrong you are. I need only cite this one to prove you're wrongness.
However, a "vague" term (and I am not the first one to say so) is consistant with what happened.
But not consistent with the explanation given by WotC and Clark/Orcus in the thread you cited.
Read the EN world thread to it's end and decide for yourself. What I am suggesting has the virtue of being consistant with Linnae's statement being absolutely true, AND being consistant with how Wotc and it's official reps reacted during the fifteen days, AND remains in contact with some shred of credibility. I don't believe the alternate explaination does. I'll leave it at that.
-Polaris
Read the EN world thread to it's end and decide for yourself.
Agreed, which is why I, unlike you, actually referenced Linae and Clark/Orcus' posts by number.
What I am suggesting has the virtue of being consistant with Linnae's statement being absolutely true, AND being consistant with how Wotc and it's official reps reacted during the fifteen days, AND remains in contact with some shred of credibility. I don't believe the alternate explaination does. I'll leave it at that.
I disagree with your use of the words "virtue", "consistant" [sic], "absolutely true", "shred" and "credibility", at least to the extent they apply to your suggestion.
Thank you for clearing that up wrecan. Obviously, I missed something somewhere as far as that is concerned.
I, too, understand why WotC would want to hold back on letting 3rd party publishers begin putting out material for 4e. But, I don't like that they are basically hamstringing at least some of the good companies (Green Ronin, Goodman Games just to name 2) at GenCon, when they make a huge amount of sales at the con. I can pretty much guarantee you that if they were to be selling 4e material at GenCon, they'd sell out before the weekend was over. Now, with WotC still not announcing what is going on regarding their participation at GC (Due, I believe to the lawsuit/Chapter 11 of GC), the RPGA also still not a part of GC, and with the other companies not able to have any 4e product to sell, it looks like the dealer's room will be one big garage sale, as companies try to divest themselves of their 3x product as much as possible. (Sorry about the long sentence.)
In the end, business is what business is. We don't have to like it (I don't in this case) but we're sort of stuck living with it. As I said before though, there's still a lot of time until August, and a lot of things can change between now and then.
Finally, Morrus and the wonderful folks at ENWorld along with folks in our own forums have put together a list of questions for Linae Foster to answer. We gave a few exclusive answers to ENWorld, which you should go take a peek at here. The rest are listed below.
How much is ENWorld paying for such treatment? It's the only realistic explanation I can think of that a company would give a third party forum preferential treatment over it's own forum.
I mean, it could also be that the people running the companies own forum are utter and abject idiots, but that's obviously not the case here, right?
Follow the EN world link that Green Knight included and read it all the way to the very end. It comes out in that thread including the comment by Linnae that I alluded to.
-Polaris
Visitors to the official website and forum of Wizards of the Coast Inc, publisher of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Ed, and licensor of whatever the GSL shapes up to be, should not have to go sifting through a third party website in search of information about the company, its products or any license programs it may be offering.
Which is why they posted the GSL FAQ on this website. But WotC are not barred from visiting third-party forums and answering questions there as well. In fact, that's also good business.
Granting "exclusive answers" to a third party website is assinine business, for one reason...
WotC wants you, me, us, everyone to PAY TO USE THIS WEBSITE.
"Hey guys, we want to charge you $15 bucks a month to use DDI on wizards.com, but we're going to post all the exclusive goodies over on enworld."
Explain the logic behind that, please.
So it's not that Lescault and Rouse are posting on enworld, it is that they are posting things exclusively on enworld and not here, and subsequently, people looking on this site for answers about WotC products/issues must be directed to enworld, an (as far as any of us know at least) independent website. When I have questions about WotC, I expect to find the answers on their website. That's pretty simple logic.
Granting "exclusive answers" to a third party website is assinine business, for one reason...
That's utterly impractical. Every timea WotC employee posts something on another website, it's "exclusive" to that website, unless he then goes and copies his post to this website. Is that what you're suggesting?
WotC wants you, me, us, everyone to PAY TO USE THIS WEBSITE.
Last I checked, the D&D website is not part of DDI. Did something change? Even after the DDI goes to a pay-site, the website will still offer free information on the game, and that's where the FAQ would go.
Explain the logic behind that, please.
I can't because your assertions are illogical.
I have questions about WotC, I expect to find the answers on their website. That's pretty simple logic.
And that's why the FAQ is on this website. Despite Polaris' assertions, there is nothing substantive on the EnWorld website about the GSL that isn't in the FAQ or the original GSL announcement. The only stuff on the random EnWorld posts are trivia about the cause of a miscommunication between WotC and Orcus, which Orcus posted to EnWorld. Since the miscommunication was posted on EnWorld (and not by a WotC employee) it makes sense for the correction to be posted there.
How much is ENWorld paying for such treatment? It's the only realistic explanation I can think of that a company would give a third party forum preferential treatment over it's own forum.
I mean, it could also be that the people running the companies own forum are utter and abject idiots, but that's obviously not the case here, right?
I found that odd too. These are the official forums and I don't expect to have to go to various sources to get all the answers that have been "officially" given. I suspect it was some sort of mollification for the confusion over who got what interview initially.
That being said it's not a big deal in this instance. I doubt I'm the only one that expects to be able to get all the released information here without resorting to visiting 3rd party sites to get teh full picture.
there is nothing substantive on the EnWorld website about the GSL that isn't in the FAQ or the original GSL announcement.
Gamer Zero, in the original post of this thread, which I later quoted, clearly states that there were exclusive answers given on ENWorld.
No, I don't expect every random comment a WotC employee makes around the net to be copied back here, however, sending people to other sites for exclusive info makes no business sense.
And check again, everything under the Dragon & Dungeon categories of the main site will become part of the DDI section which we will be expected to pay for. In addition, while this forum may stay free, accounts here that use the same email address as your DDI account share status with that account. In other words, banned here, account cancelled there, with no refund. It's in the the terms of service when you sign up, and I had it clarified by a wizo in the chatroom.
What really compounds the situation though, is the fact that Gamer Zero is WotC's community liaison. It makes no sense at all for him to be referring users to a competing website (ENWorld has paid premium accounts too, you know) for "exclusive" information. If gleemax and DDI are to succeed and become the "one site for all gamers" that it has been presented as becoming, doesn't it make more sense to keep potential customers here, rather than send them to a site that is already accepting paid accounts? Isn't it logical that a person who buys an account there and realizes that all the important information about D&D and WotC is being crossposted there by WotC employees is going to be less likely to buy an account here as well?
Gamer Zero, in the original post of this thread, which I later quoted, clearly states that there were exclusive answers given on ENWorld.
Because they wereasked on EnWorld. Doesn't it make sense ot answer questions in the forum in which they are asked? The questions related specifically to concerns raised by EnWorld members.
sending people to other sites for exclusive info makes no business sense.
"exclusive" doesn't mean "useful".
And check again, everything under the Dragon & Dungeon categories of the main site will become part of the DDI section which we will be expected to pay for.
Check again yourself. That's incorrect. Dragon and Dungeon magazines will be for pay as will the virtual game table, character creator, rules compendium and character vault. But the other features that have always been on the website will remain free.
In other words, banned here, account cancelled there, with no refund. It's in the the terms of service when you sign up, and I had it clarified by a wizo in the chatroom.
What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?
It makes no sense at all for him to be referring users to a competing website (ENWorld has paid premium accounts too, you know) for "exclusive" information.
Why? He doesn't get a commission for the number ofusers on the site and you don't have to be a perimium EnWorlduser to see the info to which he was referring.
WotC is not in competition with the EnWorld forums. Those members are WotC consumers as well. There's no need to turn this into some adolescent color war.
If gleemax and DDI are to succeed and become the "one site for all gamers" that it has been presented as becoming
It is not intended to be "the" one site. It is intended to be a site for all gamers.
Isn't it logical that a person who buys an account there and realizes that all the important information about D&D and WotC is being crossposted there by WotC employees is going to be less likely to buy an account here as well?
No, it makes no sense to not reach out to potential consumers on other sites and answer their questions there. It also makes sense to let people know here that the developers have answered EnWorld questions on EnWorld.
As for Gleemax's goal:
Gleemax is the community for gamers on the web – a combination of social networking, online gaming and game related content. This site will be for everyone. Whether you play RPGs, TCGs, board games, turn-based strategy games, miniature war games, or almost any type of tabletop/hobby game, you will find a home here.
http://gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/About/AboutGleemax.aspx
The community...
...for everyone.
And yes, as I said, everything under the Dungeon and Dragon magazine categories will be for fee. Oddly enough, that's where most, if not all of the 4e preview, design and development type articles are being placed.
The proper response to questions on ENWorld or other sites, from the WotC liaison/community manager is "hey, we answered that question over on our official forum, -link-".
That would make no sense. Because the post is answering specific questions that we on the WotC forums didn't ask.
And yes, as I said, everything under the Dungeon and Dragon magazine categories will be for fee. Oddly enough, that's where most, if not all of the 4e preview, design and development type articles are being placed.
But not the FAQ or the initial GSL license announcement, which is what we were discussing. So stop shifting the goalposts.
But not the FAQ or the initial GSL license announcement, which is what we were discussing. So stop shifting the goalposts.
Im not shifting anything, I didn't get specific about what Zero was linking to, hell, I didn't even bother to read what he was linking to. I'm making a general point about how I feel that Gleemax should be the primary source for all announcements and Q&A stuff regarding WotC and D&D.
And check again, everything under the Dragon & Dungeon categories of the main site will become part of the DDI section which we will be expected to pay for. In addition, while this forum may stay free, accounts here that use the same email address as your DDI account share status with that account. In other words, banned here, account cancelled there, with no refund. It's in the the terms of service when you sign up, and I had it clarified by a wizo in the chatroom.
I want to ask if this is really substantiated, though you've made clear that it has been. Can you just say it again so I'm absolutely sure that you mean this. If so, it's a serious issue. I don't know about US law, but here in the UK if I were treated like that, I would not only threaten (and sincerely so) legal action for a refund, but I would take it further and attempt to enforce my access to the content as I could make the case that it was unfairly excluding me. They would be quite welcome to exclude me from the forums if they felt that were necessary, but not from my content.
I had understood these forums would remain free. That complicates things.
I'm making a general point about how I feel that Gleemax should be the primary source for all announcements and Q&A stuff regarding WotC and D&D.
And it is the primary source fo all announcements and Q&A stuff. It is not the exclusive place for such information.
But s far, the only thing you've pointed to that is on other forums are answers to questions posed on other forums. Essentially, you want Wizards to tell their employees that they cannot frequent any other message boards because if they post there, they are, by definition, giving that board exclusive information. Or you're going to overbureacratze their jobs by telling them that whenever they post to another board, they have to mirror their post on this board (and give enough context so that people understand the mirrored post).
Not only is this impractical, it is bad business. Wizards might want Gleemax to become the premier gaming site, but that doesn't mean they have to act like it's the only one. There are potential customers for their products on EnWorld and RPG.net and other sites and it is a bad idea to ignore segments of your customer base in some effort to get people to join Gleemax.
What is so wrong about expecting WotC employees to focus on the WotC forum, and asking the WotC community liaison not to ask us to visit other websites for "exclusive answers" (his words, not mine)?
So is rebuking all criticism of WotC and Gamer_ZerO part of your duties as a forum lead, or just your hobby as a fanboy?
What is so wrong about expecting WotC employees to focus on the WotC forum, and asking the WotC community liaison not to ask us to visit other websites for "exclusive answers" (his words, not mine)?
What was in those "exclusive answers" that was so critical anyway? Please let the reply not be, "Nothing- but it sets a bad precedent!"
So is rebuking all criticism of WotC and Gamer_ZerO part of your duties as a forum lead, or just your hobby as a fanboy?
You've resorted to the "shill" accusation?
Rebuking your erroneous arguments has nothing to do with me being a Forum Lead and everything to do with not allowing bad information to sit on this boards unanswered.
What is so wrong about expecting WotC employees to focus on the WotC forum
WotC employees do focus on the WotC Forum. That's where the staff blogs are located. They don't do so exclusively and nor should they.
What is so wrong about ... asking the WotC community liaison not to ask us to visit other websites for "exclusive answers" (his words, not mine)?
Well, if G_Zer0 didn't do that then we wouldn't even know they were there. That seems to be worse that letting people know about information. Are you seriously suggesting that Gamer_Zer0 should pretend there are no other role-playing forms on the web and work to keep us ignorant of their existence?!
What is so wrong about expecting WotC employees to focus on the WotC forum, and asking the WotC community liaison not to ask us to visit other websites for "exclusive answers" (his words, not mine)?
This point of view (that WotC should only provide information) on its own website is so incredibly short-sighted it isn't even funny.
As a practical matter fo reality, WotC needs to advertise 4E on other relevant sites. There are very few sites out there that are more relevant to the advertising of 4E than the ENWorld page. Providing ENWorld exclusives is exactly the same thing as WotC providing interviews to G4, IGN and various other websites and TV programs.
Rebuking your erroneous arguments has nothing to do with me being a Forum Lead and everything to do with not allowing bad information to sit on this boards unanswered.
What bad information are you talking about. I HAVE MADE NO ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS. Gamer Zero clearly and plainly said "exclusive answers" and linked to ENWorld, did he not? Can you baiting read the thread again and check?
Don't talk down to me just because you're a forum lead and think you will get away with it.
This point of view (that WotC should only provide information) on its own website is so incredibly short-sighted it isn't even funny.
As a practical matter fo reality, WotC needs to advertise 4E on other relevant sites. There are very few sites out there that are more relevant to the advertising of 4E than the ENWorld page.
ENWorld sells banner advertising that WotC can easily purchase.
Putting info on ENWorld is fine, putting it ONLY there, as Gamer Zero explicitly said in the original post of this thread, is not.
And as far as Gamer Zero goes, I'd like to once again thank you for being such an attentive and responsive community liaison, I always know I can expect a timely reply when I comment on something you post here...
Maybe I should post "ATTN: Gamer Zero" on ENWorld?
And now Im going to sit back and wait for the warning letter from some wizo who is ordered by gamer zero to harass or ban me for questioning him and not submitting to the arrogance and condescension of his appointed forum lead cronies.
What... bad information are you talking about. I HAVE MADE NO ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS.
I did not say "bad information" and I did not say "erroneous statements". I said "erroneous arguments."
Your arguments about why WotC developers should not be giving "exclusive" answers to questions made "exclusively" on EnWorld's site is erroneous. And as mudbunny said, it is shortsighted and bad business.
Don't talk down to me
I'm not talking down to you. I am responding to your arguments and, unlike you, I am refraining from making personal attacks and the internet equivalent of screaming when doing so.
Rebuking your erroneous arguments has nothing to do with me being a Forum Lead and everything to do with not allowing bad information to sit on this boards unanswered.
You stand corrected. Now sit down and shut up. How can you comment on what I, or Gamer Zero are saying, if you can't even keep track of what you typed in your last post?
And now Im going to sit back and wait for the warning letter from some wizo who is ordered by gamer zero to harass or ban me for questioning him and not submitting to the arrogance and condescension of his appointed forum lead cronies.
Right. Because any discipline you receive would have nothing to do with you violating the Code of Conduct by making personal attacks.
You stand corrected.
No, I don't. The bad information are the arguments, as expressly stated in the beginning of that sentence. Sheesh.
ENWorld sells banner advertising that WotC can easily purchase.
Putting info on ENWorld is fine, putting it ONLY there, as Gamer Zero explicitly said in the original post of this thread, is not.
Despite your arguments to the contrary. It is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is the norm. Look at any company releasing a new product. Interviews and information that is released is done so through third parties.
And now Im going to sit back and wait for the warning letter from some wizo who is ordered by gamer zero to harass or ban me for questioning him and not submitting to the arrogance and condescension of his appointed forum lead cronies.
How am I being arrogant and/or condescending??
You think that all information that is released by WotC should only be released on the WotC website. I (and wrecan) think that they should be providing scoops and exclusive information to other websites as well, as is the norm in business these days.
How am I being arrogant and/or condescending??.
At least twice in this thread, I have been called wrong when I was correct.
Once when saying that the Dungeon and Dragon areas of the website will be for fee. They will.
And once when saying that Zero claimed "exclusive answers" were to be found on ENWorld. They are, he said so.
That's not a reasoned rebuttal, that's a gut instinct backlash against someone you don't agree with, and it's arrogant and condescending. The message is "you can't possibly know what you're talking about".
At least twice in this thread, I have been called wrong when I was correct.
Once when saying that the Dungeon and Dragon areas of the website will be for fee.
Nobody said that was incorrect. You were incorrect to say "WotC wants you, me, us, everyone to PAY TO USE THIS WEBSITE." (Post 33) "This website" is the forums, which is not to be paid. Nor will the news article, such as where one would find the 4th Edition FAQ.
Only after that was pointed out to you did you make the irrelevant canard that you were dicussing DDI. And yet my post correcting the misstatement you made in post 33 specifically explained the difference between "this website" and DDI.
And once when saying that Zero claimed "exclusive answers" were to be found on ENWorld. They are, he said so.
Nobody said EnWord didn't have "exclusive" information. You just refuse to acknowledge the difference between "exclusive" and "substantive".
The message is "you can't possibly know what you're talking about".
No, the message is that you aren't reading the responses to your tirades.
Nobody said that was incorrect.
Yes, you did.
And check again, everything under the Dragon & Dungeon categories of the main site will become part of the DDI section which we will be expected to pay for.
That's incorrect. Dragon and Dungeon magazines will be for pay as will the virtual game table, character creator, rules compendium and character vault. But the other features that have always been on the website will remain free.
I actually clarified that the forums, while not part of the pay section per se, are tied somewhat to the DDI accounts, you ignored that, then asked "What does that have to do with anything we're discussing?"
Are you having memory problems, or being intentionally obtuse?
Yes, you did.
I don't know how you can read the two sentences of mine that you quoted and still hold that position.
I don't know how you can read the two sentences of mine that you quoted and still hold that position.
My quote was what your quote was responding to. Wake up. You outright said I was wrong, then "corrected" me by saying the exact same thing.
WizO_Unicorn
Will GSL mean that no one is able to make any kind of system based off the d20, even if it's not for profit (such as the various anime d20's)?
The d20 STL will be going away. The OGL, however, is around forever. If you want to do an SRD / RSRD / MSRD based system, following the OGL, go right ahead.
How do you decide what is a product line?
This is relevant to me, as I'm quite a unified person, in that loads of my ideas intersect in various ways. If I created a world setting with certain metaphysical pieces, would I be blocked from using similar world rules, in for example a modern setting? Is product line purely about branding and the name on the box cover, or is it about compatible product elements? Because surely the first is two narrow, allowing people to make a setting on desert world called athas and just not call it dark sun, and the other makes shadowrun/earthdawn type cross-overs impossible if they use different licenses, even if they are developed years apart!
And what happens to people's IP if the GSL goes down?
Now here's what I was thinking:
1. You mark out which bits are GSL and if it goes down you strip out all those bits and keep your innovations, moving them on to another system, or even back onto OGL.
2. You don't do the marking out but just convert all your bits anyway without problems.
3. Your stuffed, because your ideas have been nailed to a logo and have gone overboard with it!
I have other questions too but those'll do for a bit.
- really need to wait until the text of the GSL is actually released;and
- Should be discussed with a lawyer who specializes in IP issues.
The FAQs that were released both here and on the ENWorld site are not designed to answer any detailed questions, only to give a general idea of the direction of the GSL.
Once the GSL is realeased, I am sure that your questions will be clarified and that there will be a contact person for people who have detailed questions. You *might* try PMing Scott Rouse. He was one of the people that spearheaded the puch for the GSL. He might be able to provide more information or direct you to someone who can.
Even if the SRD was released or leaked early it probably wouldn't have helped people make interactive charactersheets/skill calculators/etc. as it seems it will be more of a glorified index rather than a lite version of the core books.
Having the full core books available, on the other hand, would make it very easy to create such tools.
So which third-party companies have already decided to support 4th edition?
Necro and Goodman I know for sure.
It was much easier to keep an eye out for interesting news when you knew what time it was going to come out, because if it wasn't up by 11:10PM, it probably wasn't going to happen.
Anyone notice a pattern to the site's post schedule yet?
Hopefully something will be up by Wednesday night, although WotC might have a very liberal definition of "early" in the week.
Anyone notice a pattern to the site's post schedule yet?
Between 2300 and 2400 EDT on Tuesday, the site went down for a bit. When I looked back in at about 0010 on Wednesday, the new character sheet was posted, but no GSL yet.
Hoping to get a chance to review the 4E GSL soon so I can decide whether or not it is flexible enough to allow me to develop some content that isn't just vanilla 4E D&D. Might have to wait for the d20 GSL to get the answer to that one. Along with everyone else... :-)
Between 2300 and 2400 EDT on Tuesday, the site went down for a bit. When I looked back in at about 0010 on Wednesday, the new character sheet was posted, but no GSL yet.
Hoping to get a chance to review the 4E GSL soon so I can decide whether or not it is flexible enough to allow me to develop some content that isn't just vanilla 4E D&D. Might have to wait for the d20 GSL to get the answer to that one. Along with everyone else... :-)
which is wierd becauase I don't see the character sheet, what section did you find it in?
On the outside chance that anyone has any encouraging information, it would be most welcome.
This may be a tad redundant, but as of 9 PM EST Wednesday night, no GSL about that I can find.
On the outside chance that anyone has any encouraging information, it would be most welcome.
Well, after the last fiasco (and it was a fiasco), I think it's safe to say that Wotc will make no GSL annoucement on a Friday. There is also the short week going towards the fourth of July coming up. I have to think if the GSL isn't released tomorrow it's not going to be until early to mid-July.
I am starting to wonder if the GSL is vapor-ware.
-Polaris
[Q]Q. Is the new license finished yet? Can you provide a firm timeline?
A. The D&D 4e GSL will be released when we launch Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition on June 6, 2008.[/Q]
And, of course, the notice that it would be posted early this week.
I really hate to be this negative, I do, but come on, Wizards. Get your act together. Deliver on what you say you're going to deliver when you say you're going to deliver it. When they're are problems, there should be people with the access and capability to inform us.
What are your marketing people doing right now?!? There is no full, official apology for any of the delays, no full explanation, no attempt to correct the issues with the release of the 4e components that were major selling points, including DnDi and the GSL. You're telling me they're working on an advertisement for some future (failed?) endeavor instead of taking the time to put out these fires?
Specifically the post by Scott Rouse here where he says:
I hope, oh god do I hope this frickin thing goes up today. The license is done but late yesterday we added a bunch of new stuff to the SRD to cover some books coming out next year (like PH2 classes, power sources, and weapons).
I am still at home but when I get in this morning I'll get an update from LurkingLidda (Linae) on ripping it to PDFs and posting it today.
First, you want to be careful about posting the exact same information across the web. Remember, Google and other popular search engines ding you for repetitive content. Now, this isn't a full proof argument in that, wording the questions and answers in different ways will get your around this, but it is part of the reason you tend to limit information between locations. Also, the "exclusive" answers really aren't that exclusive, as from what I can see they were re-worded and posted here.
Consider also the time involved. Look at all the posts made here. I'm not going to say GamerZero or the rest of his team goes over everyone with a fine tooth comb, but it's true that they do go through a LOT of them. Now, if they took the time to post the same answers again and again, that's eating up time from things that have not been addressed.
As a simple marketing ploy, DnD wants us to visit ENworld. Why? It's simple. They pay for advertising there someone might have tuned out here, say by simply going directly to the forums instead of the splash portal. It's also good business to try and steer business to someone you do business with. Add to that, if the only place we could get information here, people would say that Wiz was being too secretive and greedy with their information. And, while the information can easily be made available both here and there, it saves time and resources to reference one another, and--as I stated previously--it's good business to point business in the direction of your business associates, and providing information on ENworld instead of here and being able to easily link it is a good way to do that. This fosters not only good business relationship, but more of a community atmosphere.
Being in the media and working with a number of companies to launch a new product and product identity, I have been on both sides of the fence. There eager reporter who wants to get the info and almost has to bribe the interviewed party for some time. There is also the company who really wants to get word out about their product and agrees to give the interviewer "exclusive" information for a choice spot rather than being stuck in the dungeons of some editorial blog.
Finally, there is a copyright law. Now, while GamerZero could have clearly done a c/p and quoted some information from the ENworld article for educational purposes and not infringed upon the copyright, there may be rules he follows due to internal policy that force him to refrain from doing so. Also, as we mentioned with the search engine enforcement of copied text, one wants to be especially careful.
If these and the other answers can't satisfy you, what will? Since Wiz just can't simply copy all content that it provides to these outside outlets, a section that links all interviews with a good summary perhaps? To stop providing interviews, so the word doesn't get out as easily and advertising costs most likely go up? What is going to make someone like you happy, but still be practical?
As a simple marketing ploy, DnD wants us to visit ENworld. Why? It's simple. They pay for advertising there someone might have tuned out here, say by simply going directly to the forums instead of the splash portal. It's also good business to try and steer business to someone you do business with. Add to that, if the only place we could get information here, people would say that Wiz was being too secretive and greedy with their information. And, while the information can easily be made available both here and there, it saves time and resources to reference one another, and--as I stated previously--it's good business to point business in the direction of your business associates, and providing information on ENworld instead of here and being able to easily link it is a good way to do that. This fosters not only good business relationship, but more of a community atmosphere.
Being in the media and working with a number of companies to launch a new product and product identity, I have been on both sides of the fence. There eager reporter who wants to get the info and almost has to bribe the interviewed party for some time. There is also the company who really wants to get word out about their product and agrees to give the interviewer "exclusive" information for a choice spot rather than being stuck in the dungeons of some editorial blog.
Finally, there is a copyright law.
Dude, are you saying WOTC is running a business and could possibly be in business with other businesses. Get out of town.
LOL, I'm Just being sardonic. I agree with you and I've tried to make the point on other threads but someone just wont get it.
Power to the Open Source Gamer
peace Out
You did read the other thread on this topic, right??
Specifically the post by Scott Rouse here where he says:
Yes, that topic is good. I had actually replied there before you mentioned it, but it seems the boards were going through a little weirdness this morning as I still have page 3 open in another tab, where it shows me the page two postings instead....*shrug* If there's one thing I hate, but can't do without it's databases. Thanks, though, mudbunny....seems the constructive discussion is going on over at that other thread.