The issue is that Wizards owns/operates/produces Magic: the Gathering, which is an incredibly predatory property well known for being deeply and unshakably anti-consumer. Wizards does M:tG aficionados dirty, basically on the weekly, and they make an egregious shit-ton of money doing it.
Why would a company that has shown itself to be ten thousand percent enthusiastically down for being Evil so long as Evil is profitable show any more regard for consumers of D&D than it historically has for consumers of M:tG?
Wizards of the Coast are not being "evil" and exploitative of their fans and customers. For one, Magic is not a game remotely related to gambling. In fact, there hasn't been any rule about gambling since Ante was removed in 1995. Anyone who says opening booster packs is about gambling just doesn't understand how the game works.
There may not be gambling within the game, but buying packs of random cards certainly is gambling.
As far as the OGL 1.1: Anyone think it would be worth the trouble (or are there any companies that already do this?) to make rule-agnostic setting books, so not inherently D&D books, and then only use the OGL for rule books? Normally not worth it to be sure. But if you are approaching or passing that key $750K+ annual income, getting to set aside your income from setting books suddenly looks a lot better, as you get to ideally pay no royalties, or at the least, not pay royalties on a decent chunk of your products.
There may not be gambling within the game, but buying packs of random cards certainly is gambling.
It's not legally gambling in most jurisdictions (it's the same model as baseball trading cards), though it probably should be -- it's also the model used by lootboxes in computer games.
There may not be gambling within the game, but buying packs of random cards certainly is gambling.
It's not legally gambling in most jurisdictions (it's the same model as baseball trading cards), though it probably should be -- it's also the model used by lootboxes in computer games.
There may not be gambling within the game, but buying packs of random cards certainly is gambling.
It's not legally gambling in most jurisdictions (it's the same model as baseball trading cards), though it probably should be -- it's also the model used by lootboxes in computer games.
idk if id take screen rant as an accurate source of info, but, thats out of 4 countries, their statement still rings true, in most jurisdictions, its not illegal gambling
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There may not be gambling within the game, but buying packs of random cards certainly is gambling.
As far as the OGL 1.1: Anyone think it would be worth the trouble (or are there any companies that already do this?) to make rule-agnostic setting books, so not inherently D&D books, and then only use the OGL for rule books? Normally not worth it to be sure. But if you are approaching or passing that key $750K+ annual income, getting to set aside your income from setting books suddenly looks a lot better, as you get to ideally pay no royalties, or at the least, not pay royalties on a decent chunk of your products.
It's not legally gambling in most jurisdictions (it's the same model as baseball trading cards), though it probably should be -- it's also the model used by lootboxes in computer games.
You don't say...
https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-illegal-japan-china-belgium-netherlands/
idk if id take screen rant as an accurate source of info, but, thats out of 4 countries, their statement still rings true, in most jurisdictions, its not illegal gambling