Martin:
By your responses I can see I botched my explanations. BTW, I am not down on
third party publishing in any way but I guess I was not clear in my
statements. Clearly, I was wrong to say previously, "I must also disagree
that commercial incentive is necessary for the progress of OGC or that the
lack of it would hinder it." Not only was my grammar in error, but truly a
lack of profit motive does hinder OGC IF, by that, everyone means lack of
profit motive slows the adoption of the OGL and OGC.
What I disagree with is the assumption that the only reason OGC will succeed,
indeed that the only reason the OGL exists, is because users can profit
financially. This is not right.
First, the OGL and OGC exist because WotC created them to profit themselves
in various ways. That is not in dispute and is an underlying assumption for
their other decisions.
Second, WotC developed the OGC and PI provisions using protecting themselves
as the primary criterion. People were going to create "D&D" material no
matter what WotC did. Assuming that expanding the compatible knowledge base
is a desirable and inevitable thing, how does a company protect their assets
without alienating customers? How does one avoid expensive court wranglings?
How can one deal with this and protect their ability to profit from their
assets? These are the questions the OGL answers, but they were answered for
WotC's needs first and foremost.
Third, how do you get people to abide by an OGL? What additional value can
you give people to get them to adopt it willingly and to spread word of it?
By offering a carrot of potential profit to those who use it.
My implication is that supporting commercialism was not a starting
requirement of the OGL but a natural outcropping. Since they cannot force
adoption of the OGL only encourage it, they had to open the market up a bit.
Perhaps it is only a fine distinction but I think that commercial benefit (to
others than WotC) is not the primary reason the OGL was created, but it is an
important tool for spreading it.
If the OGL and OGC are based primarily on goals other than "profits for users
besides WotC" then success for them, must be based primarily on other
factors. I certainly believe OGL progress is dependent on getting the word
out, and the patina of "official" products certainly helps this. It is also
true as you mentioned, that we would not have products like the CC if someone
didn't think they could profit by it. Profit "sharing" is a good tool to
spread the word with. But is it necessary for overall success?
You said:
>The OGL was specifically designed to support the profit
>motive.
I still disagree. The motive is a result of the design goals not the other
way around, unless Ryan wants to say that they thought of making other people
money before the considerations I have listed above.
You also said:
>The Creature Collection and Death
>in Freeport and Three Days to Kill, stocked in major stores right next to
>the DMG and PHB, have expanded knowledge of Open Gaming far more than any
>non-profit work ever will.
They have for now, but such an absolutist statement is unlikely to hold over
time. It also reflects the profit centered view of OGC, that profit based
development is somehow more important. In the long run, wide spread adoption
and use of the OGL, to the point where it impacts gamers as a whole (and thus
WotC's bottom line), will mean that it is being used by more than just profit
makers and has spread beyond the shelves. WotC's desire is to increase
market share and sell books to that share. Third party for-profit products
(especially shelf bound ones) can only stretch the market so far. The OGL
could stimulate core book sales by people who don't want to pay for PI
products, but still want to use the OGL and create OGC. That is going to
happen on the web, and it could amount to as driving a force as anything
else.
I think that implying that using the OGL and OGC as Faust is planning, is
going to hurt OGC's long term success by possibly hurting profits short term,
is flawed. Especially if such arguments are based on a profit "entitlement"
mentality. Note, I refer only to OGC efforts.
Boy, I hope I haven't offended anybody (or put'em to sleep :( ) but let me
make one last point. The OGL's design supports making a profit (along with
other interesting things), but the free sharing of ideas is what will make it
a success.
Does that clear up what I meant to say?
-Alex Silva
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
