This is why I also don't think a collective effort would work. The best way I see a third party logo coming to carry any weight in the market is by looking at examples where this has already happened. You have a publisher with respectable market penetration build the logo for their own use and then say "hey, if you guys want to use it too, here are the terms. If you don't like it, you don't use it."
Superlink works because it was established by a middle rung company that already had recognizable branding. Small press is able to take advantage of that, but it certainly wouldn't be nearly as effective if every Superlink publisher was altering the logo to suit their own, specific desires, or if everyone publishing under the logo had a voice in its terms of use. There's definately a difference in the prospective success of the collective ownership model and the "choose an alpha and the rest of the pack will follow" model. > Ah look. Just another example of "publishers working > together in enlightened self-interest." How bucolic > and utopian. > > :) > > Lets all put that crack pipe away, shall we. :) > > Clark > > PS--sorry, I wasnt trying to single you guys out. You > know I like both of you guys. > > But I thought it might be an interesting example to > help those who have this dreamy illusion of > enlightened publishers working together to craft the > common good of the game. Heck, we cant even agree on > logos. We cant even agree whether we agree on logos. > We cant even agree if we are on the right list to talk > about our disagreement on logos. > > So I guess my point is (and you guys are my unwitting > pieces of evidence) that it is rather pie in the skie > (or should I say Orc and Pie in the Sky) to think that > we publishers can really unite in any grand way. It > hasnt really worked and I dont see it working in the > future. > > Clark again. Hey, wasnt this a PS? That got rather > long... > > --- Mark Clover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Steve, you know full well my mention of "negativity" >> was in regard to >> your rudeness, ala - "Then the thing you need to >> consider, Mark, is >> which of our goals is actually looking at what the >> people on the list >> here are talking about" (basically telling me to >> shut up if my goals >> differ). Twisting it to imply I wasn't interested >> in constructive >> criticism is just another example of the very >> problem that drives >> people away from posting in the first place. >> >> As always, >> Mark Clover >> www.CreativeMountainGames.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ogf-l mailing list >> Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org >> > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l >> > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l Steven Trustrum President Misfit Studios http://www.misfit-studios.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
