I wouldn’t be at all surprised if WotC didn’t stage this “leak” as a way to gage community reactions. Kinda like a UA for the OGL.
I don't think so on this. The journalist who released it emphasized they had to go through all the editorial steps to publish it, and that they thought (their personnel opinion) that it was a bad idea. The other articles the journalist wrote have been very pro-indie, so if WotC was to leak it, I would suspect a much more WotC friendly agency such as Bell of Lost Souls.
I think it's an interesting action, and one that is not unexpected. Profits from the last 3 years have been outstanding, but there has been a notable decrease in spending across the board, and combined with an expected recession in the United States (minor to moderate), the drive to create multiple income streams through D&D is critical for Hasbro shareholders. MtG showed a downtrend last quarter.
I believe that a majority of the people who work on the D&D IP within WotC are fans, and those people push the game forward as much as possible. I also believe that key decision makers with Hasbro view MtG, D&D and Transformers all as the same item: Collectible entertainment purchased utilizing disposable income. There is no quantitative difference from their viewpoint of development, testing and sales of these products, and likely view 3PP as pushing something akin to "Form Shifting Robots - Exceeds your ocular senses!"
The one item on this was that the journalist stated that date that they received on the draft was from Mid-December, prior to the initial outcry and WotC posting on 21 December. Hasbro legal is probably still examining this, but as many 3PP have stated this lines up with what they have been told privately, as well as the Kickstarter confirmation of the royalty percentages being accurate, this draft is probably a near complete version in terms of numbers and expectations.
I've been through two big contractions with D&D, and was expecting a third sometime in the next few years. This may be it *shrug*
Throw a stone on twitter or you tube. Look up Gizmodo.
I boycott Twitter and everything on YouTube that I’ve found is just talking about the doc, not the doc itself. I asked if anyone had a link to the doc.
Don't read to much into it. Someone supposedly got an early draft of the OGL 1.1 and spread of bunch of information that can't actually be proven to be true. The document in question said that the OGL would be released on the 4th (which obviously didn't happen) yet everyone is sure the rest of it is 100%. Wait a little while and the when WotC actually releases it to the public, then freak out if needed. Right now people are grabbing torches and pitch forks over rumors.
Thank you. I knew I could count on you to lay it out straight for me.
I am not a exactly a fan of WotC, but I try not to make judgements without actual facts to back it up. WotC will release the OGL once negotiations are done and then everyone will know exactly what is in it. If is as bad as the rumors say, then burn the place down (figuratively not literally people) but until then just watch and wait. It shouldn't be too much longer.
I disagree... I think it's good to make a stink about this. This whole thing isn't a decision made by creatives at WoTC... it's a decision made by pencil pushers at Hasbro who want More Money and they want it Now, regardless of what long term effects it might have. These people won't listen to reason... the only thing that will change their mind is if there's a clear sign that the thing they're doing to make money will actually lose them money. If Hasbro stock starts to drop directly as a result of this, they might actually abandon the concept. But if everyone just sits back and waits and lets them do whatever they want, they'll happily implement whatever stupid nonsense they think will make them money today without a single thought to what it will mean tomorrow.
You are certainly allowed to run around and shout all you like. But don't pretend like you have all the facts and not basing everything on a rumor. No one here has seen the finalized OGL. Just a news article with a draft of OGL and a Tweet that says nothing more than Kickstarter is involved in the negotiations.
I'm basing my opinion mostly on a representative from Kickstarter confirming that, should the new OGL be implemented, any Kickstarter campaign that makes at least 750k will be forced to pay 20% to Hasbro, which was negotiated down from 25%. He also confirms that negotiations are still underway and nothing is finalized... even whether the 20% comes from the overall Kickstarter, or if it will be just from the money remaining after Kickstarter takes their cut, plus taxes, etc. isn't clear. So while I do acknowledge that much of what we've heard is a rumor, it's still clear that something very similar to what has leaked has evidence of being discussed by some people directly involved, and I can only hope that the overwhelmingly negative response so far will help provide ammo for those directly involved to keep the rumor from proving true.
Point to the number confirmation in this post
Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed. No hidden benefits / no financial kickbacks for KS. This is their license, not ours, obviously.
or this one
Very much aware of the numbers.
Kickstarter didn't confirm anything other than that they are part of the process. They provided no numbers at all.
Ah, good point. I think the fact that he never denies the 20% number is a bit telling, but I also understand that there's only so much that an individual working for Kickstarter can confirm publicly about an ongoing negotiation. It could still be a much lower number.
I’m confused. Idk much about business, but it seems like WOTC has been incredibly generous letting people use their intellectual property without charging them for it. And even now they’re only charging royalties if you make a lot of money (over $750,000), which apparently very few companies do. Why is this such a bad thing?
They are about to dam many *other* creators in the D&D universe. For instance, I couldn't find a VTT that I deemed worthy of the effort until I found Foundry VTT.
While I know many people won't agree with that view, but it's my and many other people's view and while this won't necessarily kill Foundry VTT, it will definitely take a HUGE part of their pie if they cannot run D&D on Foundry because WotC want to create their own VTT and kill all others off. (even if they say they don't want too, it is the end goal no matter what they actually say)
There is a Don Draper (Mad Men) segment that explains it to a tee. Search Youtube for "Don Draper is the man." That pretty much explains it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I'm basing my opinion mostly on a representative from Kickstarter confirming that, should the new OGL be implemented, any Kickstarter campaign that makes at least 750k will be forced to pay 20% to Hasbro, which was negotiated down from 25%. He also confirms that negotiations are still underway and nothing is finalized... even whether the 20% comes from the overall Kickstarter, or if it will be just from the money remaining after Kickstarter takes their cut, plus taxes, etc. isn't clear. So while I do acknowledge that much of what we've heard is a rumor, it's still clear that something very similar to what has leaked has evidence of being discussed by some people directly involved, and I can only hope that the overwhelmingly negative response so far will help provide ammo for those directly involved to keep the rumor from proving true.
Point to the number confirmation in this post
Kickstarter was contacted after WoTC decided to make OGL changes, so we felt the best move was to advocate for creators, which we did. Managed to get lower % plus more being discussed. No hidden benefits / no financial kickbacks for KS. This is their license, not ours, obviously.
or this one
Very much aware of the numbers.
Kickstarter didn't confirm anything other than that they are part of the process. They provided no numbers at all.
These are a response to the thread journalist Linda Codega posted on their tweet string. Jon Ritter directly responded to their numbers, stating that he had negotiated a lower rate for Kickstarter. He didn't dispute the numbers, but directly responded to their question as to "No explanation is given in the OGL 1.1 as to why Kickstarter projects get this 5% kickback.:"
Just voicing my displeasure with this situation. I already had enough reason to walk away from WotC with 5e's poor quality adventures and rules that needed 3rd party products to feel whole or comprehensible (which is ironic, given the news). Then there was the "players are under-monetized" comment and then this OGL 1.1 fiasco... I don't think the people in charge care about the quality of the product, only how it will enrich them and their precious stockholders.
As someone who really admired the invention of the OGL and all the good that came from that (thank you, Ryan Dancey!!!), if this leak is true then it is the ultimate insult to the people that helped D&D stay relevant and thriving. I am happily supporting other companies, but Hasbro/WotC isn't getting another penny from me or anyone else I know with these kind of evil shenanigans.
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Ah, good point. I think the fact that he never denies the 20% number is a bit telling, but I also understand that there's only so much that an individual working for Kickstarter can confirm publicly about an ongoing negotiation. It could still be a much lower number.
I completely agree that it looks bad. I am just saying that we don't know anything for certain and we shouldn't pretend to.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if WotC didn’t stage this “leak” as a way to gage community reactions. Kinda like a UA for the OGL.
The Gizmodo article specified the draft was received from a non-WOTC source, for what that's worth
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
WotC/Hasbro has not (yet) relased any official statement to say that this draft isn't real. If they wanted to stop the rumour-mongering they could have done that very easily and quickly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo. They never released the full text (and shouldn't) as it could compromise their source. They did state their editor and legal team reviewed the full document and found the source and document credible. Is that 100%? Nope, but for leaked documentation its a good estimate. Doesn't mean its the final version but the expected date of release on the draft (3 Jan I think) and the date on the draft (Mid-December) indicate is was likely a late-version draft of the OGL.
2 and 3. Wizards has not responded to them or anyone else.
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
If they are currently in talks (as the Kickstarter tweet suggests) then it is in their best interest to wait till said talks are done to say much of anything.
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo
The text of a draft from a few weeks ago was leaked to Codega from a non-WOTC source
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo
The text of a draft from a few weeks ago was leaked to Codega from a non-WOTC source
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
Quick Question: Why delete the remainder of my post which directly answers your post?
Here is what I fully said:
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo. They never released the full text (and shouldn't) as it could compromise their source. They did state their editor and legal team reviewed the full document and found the source and document credible. Is that 100%? Nope, but for leaked documentation its a good estimate. Doesn't mean its the final version but the expected date of release on the draft (3 Jan I think) and the date on the draft (Mid-December) indicate is was likely a late-version draft of the OGL.
I really don't understand what was broke here that needed fixing. WotC had record profits last year, and Hasbro has been in near constant growth till the pandemic hit... Why do they need to make the market landscape worse.
I think the biggest issue is this: “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.”
I can understand why WotC would feel that they deserve a piece of the pie when Paizo and other publishers are using the OGL to create games that directlycompete with D&D as fantasy RPGs, instead of creating material for D&D (or using it to create games in genres that D&D doesn't cover). I don't know what the best way to handle this would be. I think it's fair for WotC to ask for royalties in such cases, as it amounts to lost business for them, but I think some of the stipulations in the new OGL are a bit too draconian and far-reaching regarding the way this is being handled.
I mean... I for one dont sympathize with big corporations that expressly want to use legal documentation to suddenly change the market landscape to get more money without improving any products or services.
To get slightly political it's one of the big issues with current copyright legislation- That you can make money hoarding IP without actually producing any creative work. The length of time before things enter public domain should be significantly reduced, and it's only thanks to corporate lobbying that it's protected for as long as it currently is.
And it's good to remember the intellectual property WotC are so mad other people have made foundations off of... Isn't originally theirs. They bought the right to play with the market this way.
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
While this is true, WotC/Hasbro have not (yet) released any official or unofficial statement (AFAIK) denying the veracity of this leaked draft, so at the very least if it is real then even if it's not the final version, it does give us a great deal of insight into their plans, and we should let them know how we feel about what's in this draft so that they (hopefully) can take that in to account before they finalize the OGL 1.1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo
The text of a draft from a few weeks ago was leaked to Codega from a non-WOTC source
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
Quick Question: Why delete the remainder of my post which directly answers your post?
Because the information that was actually relevant to the point you were addressing needed to be highlighted
I'm rather tired of all the conspiracy-mongering and hair-on-fire speculation flying around on this topic, and while you probably didn't intend to contribute to it, I'd rather make sure it's clear to everyone who cares what we actually know at this point
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo
The text of a draft from a few weeks ago was leaked to Codega from a non-WOTC source
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
Quick Question: Why delete the remainder of my post which directly answers your post?
Because the information that was actually relevant to the point you were addressing needed to be highlighted
I'm rather tired of all the conspiracy-mongering and hair-on-fire speculation flying around on this topic, and while you probably didn't intend to contribute to it, I'd rather make sure it's clear to everyone who cares what we actually know at this point
Nope, all my information was relevant and to the point. You didn't like the other section of it. It's not conspiracy mongering, i've not made any determination or stated anything that was not stated by the original author. I do find it interesting rather than discuss, you view your role in this is to "make sure it's clear to everyone" what should be discussed.
I don't think the changes to the OGL will be the end of the world for 3rd party creators. Think of it as an additional cost of doing business. Ultimately, the changes will likely increase their costs, and they will have to increase their prices in order to maintain their desired profit margin, but at the end of the day WoTC knows that 3rd party creators are essential, and would never outright kill the golden goose. (Much like 3rd party modders in the PC game industry)
I’m confused. Idk much about business, but it seems like WOTC has been incredibly generous letting people use their intellectual property without charging them for it. And even now they’re only charging royalties if you make a lot of money (over $750,000), which apparently very few companies do. Why is this such a bad thing?
The biggest issue, IF true, is that you would grant WotC an irrevocable, royalty free license to do whatever they want with your IP (including just republishing it as their own without crediting you) in the supposed new OGL. It's a big IF at the moment though.
Honestly, there are several big issues. The one you mention is definitely among them.
There's also the royalty levels they are requiring are far greater than any profit margin of any company in this industry. From what I've heard, more typical royalty rates for even greater uses of IP are about 1/10th of what they are asking, which lends credence to the theory that it's less about getting those royalties than it is strong-arming those at that level into a custom license rather than the OGL. I can assure you Paizo, MCDM, and others at that level are not turning enough profit to eat a fee of 25% of their revenue even if it doesn't kick in until $750k.
The $750,000 cut off is also revisable at any time with only a 30 day notice. So, say you are a small time publisher who manages to make a living at this but in September or October, WotC lowers the cut off so now all of your income that year is suddenly over the royalty threshold and you need to pay WotC 25% of what you've earned so far with only 30 days notice that it is coming.
By claiming they can "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a, they are trying to revoke a license that they themselves stated was irrevocable and dozens of businesses accepted because it was irrevocable. This goes against their clearly stated intent of the OGL, the spirit of open-source licenses the OGL is based on, and relies on a legally dubious interpretation of a single word and hoping WotC-2000 messed up what they intended to do enough that WotC-2023 can exploit that.
If they can "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a, it doesn't just impact future OneD&D support but retroactively throws into question everything else. Pathfinder 1e and 2e could be forced to cease publication if past SRDs are no longer "authorized." Not to mention numerous games that used OGL 1.0a for licensing because it seemed like a good license even when they weren't even using the SRD or D&D content. All of those would be in legal limbo since WotC isn't party to the IP licensing but they are claiming they can "de-authorize" a license they aren't even party to. It's a mess.
It retroactively cuts off VTTs, software, and anything electronic that isn't a PDF.
It requires companies (including those far below the royalty cut-off) to disclose all their financial information to WotC.
In fact, all terms of the license are revisable with only a 30 day notice is a massive problem. At least OGL 1.0a had provisions safeguarding against changes deliberately shifting some power to the licensees and away from WotC, but WotC appears to be try to ignore those and the new license puts all of the power in their hands. So business would not just be agreeing to the OGL 1.1 terms, but potentially committing themselves to whatever changes WotC decides to make in the future. You could start a project under one set of legal expectations, but before you even finish it anything in that license could be changed. Given how extreme and rapid these changes reportedly were, that is a massive risk for every publisher would have to consider since it would rely on a lot of trust in WotC and WotC just burned through all of that trust.
And even ignoring the "cutesy" unprofessionalism reportedly in the license, I'm sure I'm still missing many problems. Overall, it is an extremely bad license even if it was brand new, but as an "update" to the OGL it undermines the entire intent of the OGL AND it gives WotC the power to effectively put any 3PP who agrees to it out of business if they wanted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think so on this. The journalist who released it emphasized they had to go through all the editorial steps to publish it, and that they thought (their personnel opinion) that it was a bad idea. The other articles the journalist wrote have been very pro-indie, so if WotC was to leak it, I would suspect a much more WotC friendly agency such as Bell of Lost Souls.
I think it's an interesting action, and one that is not unexpected. Profits from the last 3 years have been outstanding, but there has been a notable decrease in spending across the board, and combined with an expected recession in the United States (minor to moderate), the drive to create multiple income streams through D&D is critical for Hasbro shareholders. MtG showed a downtrend last quarter.
I believe that a majority of the people who work on the D&D IP within WotC are fans, and those people push the game forward as much as possible. I also believe that key decision makers with Hasbro view MtG, D&D and Transformers all as the same item: Collectible entertainment purchased utilizing disposable income. There is no quantitative difference from their viewpoint of development, testing and sales of these products, and likely view 3PP as pushing something akin to "Form Shifting Robots - Exceeds your ocular senses!"
The one item on this was that the journalist stated that date that they received on the draft was from Mid-December, prior to the initial outcry and WotC posting on 21 December. Hasbro legal is probably still examining this, but as many 3PP have stated this lines up with what they have been told privately, as well as the Kickstarter confirmation of the royalty percentages being accurate, this draft is probably a near complete version in terms of numbers and expectations.
I've been through two big contractions with D&D, and was expecting a third sometime in the next few years. This may be it *shrug*
Point to the number confirmation in this post
or this one
Kickstarter didn't confirm anything other than that they are part of the process. They provided no numbers at all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Ah, good point. I think the fact that he never denies the 20% number is a bit telling, but I also understand that there's only so much that an individual working for Kickstarter can confirm publicly about an ongoing negotiation. It could still be a much lower number.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
They are about to dam many *other* creators in the D&D universe. For instance, I couldn't find a VTT that I deemed worthy of the effort until I found Foundry VTT.
While I know many people won't agree with that view, but it's my and many other people's view and while this won't necessarily kill Foundry VTT, it will definitely take a HUGE part of their pie if they cannot run D&D on Foundry because WotC want to create their own VTT and kill all others off. (even if they say they don't want too, it is the end goal no matter what they actually say)
There is a Don Draper (Mad Men) segment that explains it to a tee. Search Youtube for "Don Draper is the man." That pretty much explains it.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
These are a response to the thread journalist Linda Codega posted on their tweet string. Jon Ritter directly responded to their numbers, stating that he had negotiated a lower rate for Kickstarter. He didn't dispute the numbers, but directly responded to their question as to "No explanation is given in the OGL 1.1 as to why Kickstarter projects get this 5% kickback.:"
Just voicing my displeasure with this situation. I already had enough reason to walk away from WotC with 5e's poor quality adventures and rules that needed 3rd party products to feel whole or comprehensible (which is ironic, given the news). Then there was the "players are under-monetized" comment and then this OGL 1.1 fiasco... I don't think the people in charge care about the quality of the product, only how it will enrich them and their precious stockholders.
As someone who really admired the invention of the OGL and all the good that came from that (thank you, Ryan Dancey!!!), if this leak is true then it is the ultimate insult to the people that helped D&D stay relevant and thriving. I am happily supporting other companies, but Hasbro/WotC isn't getting another penny from me or anyone else I know with these kind of evil shenanigans.
It would be helpful if we could pull all the evidence together in one post we can all refer to. My understanding is that 1. the full text of the purported OGL 1.1 is available to read (whether leaked or released); 2. Wizards was asked if it was true; 3. Wizards/Hasbro has not (yet) denied that it is real.
Have I got that right?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I completely agree that it looks bad. I am just saying that we don't know anything for certain and we shouldn't pretend to.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The Gizmodo article specified the draft was received from a non-WOTC source, for what that's worth
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
WotC/Hasbro has not (yet) relased any official statement to say that this draft isn't real. If they wanted to stop the rumour-mongering they could have done that very easily and quickly.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo. They never released the full text (and shouldn't) as it could compromise their source. They did state their editor and legal team reviewed the full document and found the source and document credible. Is that 100%? Nope, but for leaked documentation its a good estimate. Doesn't mean its the final version but the expected date of release on the draft (3 Jan I think) and the date on the draft (Mid-December) indicate is was likely a late-version draft of the OGL.
2 and 3. Wizards has not responded to them or anyone else.
If they are currently in talks (as the Kickstarter tweet suggests) then it is in their best interest to wait till said talks are done to say much of anything.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The text of a draft from a few weeks ago was leaked to Codega from a non-WOTC source
We have absolutely no way of knowing if it's the document WOTC will eventually use or not
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Quick Question: Why delete the remainder of my post which directly answers your post?
Here is what I fully said:
1. The full text was leaked via a .txt file to Linda Codega who posted an article on Gizmodo. They never released the full text (and shouldn't) as it could compromise their source. They did state their editor and legal team reviewed the full document and found the source and document credible. Is that 100%? Nope, but for leaked documentation its a good estimate. Doesn't mean its the final version but the expected date of release on the draft (3 Jan I think) and the date on the draft (Mid-December) indicate is was likely a late-version draft of the OGL.
I mean... I for one dont sympathize with big corporations that expressly want to use legal documentation to suddenly change the market landscape to get more money without improving any products or services.
To get slightly political it's one of the big issues with current copyright legislation- That you can make money hoarding IP without actually producing any creative work. The length of time before things enter public domain should be significantly reduced, and it's only thanks to corporate lobbying that it's protected for as long as it currently is.
And it's good to remember the intellectual property WotC are so mad other people have made foundations off of... Isn't originally theirs. They bought the right to play with the market this way.
While this is true, WotC/Hasbro have not (yet) released any official or unofficial statement (AFAIK) denying the veracity of this leaked draft, so at the very least if it is real then even if it's not the final version, it does give us a great deal of insight into their plans, and we should let them know how we feel about what's in this draft so that they (hopefully) can take that in to account before they finalize the OGL 1.1.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Because the information that was actually relevant to the point you were addressing needed to be highlighted
I'm rather tired of all the conspiracy-mongering and hair-on-fire speculation flying around on this topic, and while you probably didn't intend to contribute to it, I'd rather make sure it's clear to everyone who cares what we actually know at this point
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nope, all my information was relevant and to the point. You didn't like the other section of it. It's not conspiracy mongering, i've not made any determination or stated anything that was not stated by the original author. I do find it interesting rather than discuss, you view your role in this is to "make sure it's clear to everyone" what should be discussed.
I don't think the changes to the OGL will be the end of the world for 3rd party creators. Think of it as an additional cost of doing business. Ultimately, the changes will likely increase their costs, and they will have to increase their prices in order to maintain their desired profit margin, but at the end of the day WoTC knows that 3rd party creators are essential, and would never outright kill the golden goose. (Much like 3rd party modders in the PC game industry)
Honestly, there are several big issues. The one you mention is definitely among them.
There's also the royalty levels they are requiring are far greater than any profit margin of any company in this industry. From what I've heard, more typical royalty rates for even greater uses of IP are about 1/10th of what they are asking, which lends credence to the theory that it's less about getting those royalties than it is strong-arming those at that level into a custom license rather than the OGL. I can assure you Paizo, MCDM, and others at that level are not turning enough profit to eat a fee of 25% of their revenue even if it doesn't kick in until $750k.
The $750,000 cut off is also revisable at any time with only a 30 day notice. So, say you are a small time publisher who manages to make a living at this but in September or October, WotC lowers the cut off so now all of your income that year is suddenly over the royalty threshold and you need to pay WotC 25% of what you've earned so far with only 30 days notice that it is coming.
By claiming they can "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a, they are trying to revoke a license that they themselves stated was irrevocable and dozens of businesses accepted because it was irrevocable. This goes against their clearly stated intent of the OGL, the spirit of open-source licenses the OGL is based on, and relies on a legally dubious interpretation of a single word and hoping WotC-2000 messed up what they intended to do enough that WotC-2023 can exploit that.
If they can "de-authorize" OGL 1.0a, it doesn't just impact future OneD&D support but retroactively throws into question everything else. Pathfinder 1e and 2e could be forced to cease publication if past SRDs are no longer "authorized." Not to mention numerous games that used OGL 1.0a for licensing because it seemed like a good license even when they weren't even using the SRD or D&D content. All of those would be in legal limbo since WotC isn't party to the IP licensing but they are claiming they can "de-authorize" a license they aren't even party to. It's a mess.
It retroactively cuts off VTTs, software, and anything electronic that isn't a PDF.
It requires companies (including those far below the royalty cut-off) to disclose all their financial information to WotC.
In fact, all terms of the license are revisable with only a 30 day notice is a massive problem. At least OGL 1.0a had provisions safeguarding against changes deliberately shifting some power to the licensees and away from WotC, but WotC appears to be try to ignore those and the new license puts all of the power in their hands. So business would not just be agreeing to the OGL 1.1 terms, but potentially committing themselves to whatever changes WotC decides to make in the future. You could start a project under one set of legal expectations, but before you even finish it anything in that license could be changed. Given how extreme and rapid these changes reportedly were, that is a massive risk for every publisher would have to consider since it would rely on a lot of trust in WotC and WotC just burned through all of that trust.
And even ignoring the "cutesy" unprofessionalism reportedly in the license, I'm sure I'm still missing many problems. Overall, it is an extremely bad license even if it was brand new, but as an "update" to the OGL it undermines the entire intent of the OGL AND it gives WotC the power to effectively put any 3PP who agrees to it out of business if they wanted.