TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.
It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.
Count me in
Can we call it “Blackmoor” or “Project Arneson” or the like?
I'm sure some kind of community system or network will arise out of this and I'm excited to see it. I doubt it will ever grow to a fraction of the titanic heights of D&D but no doubt I'll find a neat system in the making that I can contribute to. I'm sure Hasbro doesn't need my money. I've been dawdling on publishing an actual adventure module for years now and I had just decided on 5e OGL not even two weeks ago (New Year's resolution lol). Definitely not going that route now!
So I should've expected to be called out and I wanted to respect you with a response BoringBard.
I understand how you feel, TTRPG is one of my all time favorite hobbies and I feel very passionately about it too. There are people who even more necessarily passionate about now because it affects their livelihood. I think I've seen enough for me to pause on my spending with WotC and put that money into independent game makers. What I see here are people making reasonable decisions about how they use their money, which is their right. We don't have many places in WotC controlled spaces to express feedback (I was warned almost immediately in the discord) and people here are being very civil and reasonable while giving negative feedback. The folks above me have already done a thorough enough job of refuting your points so I'm going to avoid a back and forth (and more name calling!).
Despite how I feel about this morally, I think Hasbro's going to unfortunately get away with it.
It's a smart business decision. Chris Cooks and Cynthia Williams come from software and video games, where locking down your IP is proven to be effective at increasing profit while minimizing cost. Instead of the cost of having to create a product, the only expense needed to draft a new OGL is legal payroll. Doing this will perfectly situate WotC in preparation for their own VTT. With the proposed OGL 1.1, 3rd party content released under it could find itself included in that new VTT as an incentive for users to adopt. The proposed OGL 1.1 treats 3rd party IP the same was the existing DMs Guild licensing agreement does. So someone new to the company and not as familiar with the OGL (and its far reaching impact on the industry), it probably doesn't seem like a big deal to take the policy "uniform across platform."
Critical Role, Disney, Dimension 20 (maybe...), and other big players are probably already in negotiation for separate deals. Agreements will be signed or are already signed. There might not be enough resistance to test WotC in court. With the buzz of the upcoming movie, general interest in D&D will peak in a couple months and momentum for any protest/boycott will blow over. WotC might even walk a clause or two back, but they'll get an OGL 1.1 out that they think will benefit them financially. There is a clear directive that Williams promised the shareholders, she now has to monetize D&D otherwise that would be defrauding the shareholders. The VTT and DndBeyond need to succeed in order to enable that monetization, and they think tightening the reins on their IP will help ensure that success.
While I stop my spending, cancel my subscription, etc. my group will keep playing 5e because I'm not the DM currently. I'm not faulting anyone for continuing 5e as a hobby, I totally get it. I have hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours invested, lowballing. When it's my turn to run a game, maybe I'll suggest a different system to try out. I think that's a pretty healthy response, personally.
As a third party creator that has spent the last 2+ years working on a book this news is crushing and deeply disturbing. As a result I can no longer continue to support a company that cares more about profits than that of the players (and underappreciated DMs) that made those profits possible. I will soon be deleting my DNDBeyond account and I suggest anyone who actually supports 3rd party creators do the same and use the following hashtags on social media:
#mONEyDND and #OpenDnD
all companies care more about profits then the people
The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak.
That... doesn't make any sense. The normal response to leaks is to move release forward, not back. I'm sure there's a reason Wizards hasn't officially released OGL 1.1 yet, but I very much doubt that reason is the leak (not impossible the reaction to the leak is relevant, but the original leak, not so much).
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
You are characterizing anyone who is following this and taking the position of "yeah, this is bad because the leak says that the old OGL will be revoked" as "panicking" and "acting like the skying [sic] is falling out." as being unreasonable and reactionary no matter if they have taken the same information or maybe even more and come to a different conclusion than you. You may be trying to come across as reasonable, but you are, by no means, being charitable and that's pretty bad in my books. A bit of shame on you for being like that.
Did you even read my post? I explicitly said that many of the concerns around this were valid, and that many people were not overreacting, panicking, or acting like the sky is falling out. What I did say was that there were some people quitting the game and cancelling their accounts game over (what is at this point in time) unconfirmed rumors and unconfirmed leaks. Many people who are doing things like this are panicking and/or overreacting. I've been participating in many threads about Open Game License 1.1 and have seen a large number of people who have been voicing their concerns, but I have also seen some people that are acting like the sky is falling out.
To quote myself from earlier, "There are some people panicking/acting like the sky is falling out". I literally said some, and last I checked some people in a group doesn't mean every person in that group. You have twisted my words drastically in order to attack and shame me over them. If you are going to respond to my posts in future, please check to see that you are responding what I actually wrote.
Also, I have already looked over the article several times. Not only does "My lawyer friend" not specify what type of lawyer he is, but going off one lawyers interpretation of something isn't necessarily the best choice when there are other lawyers who might disagree.
You keep repeating yourself largely because you aren't listening to anyones concerns, just saying everyone is being hyperbolistic because you don't think discussion of leaks should happen on anyones terms
I "keep repeating" myself because you guys keep bringing up the same points over and over. I am listening to your guys concerns, and I am doing my best to civilly respond to them. If I am failing at that, then I truly am sorry. However, I do find it quite frustrating when comments get made about how I'm "just saying [that] everyone is being hyperbolistic" when what I am actually writing is a far cry from that.
And yes, there are sources citing that multiple sweetheart contracts were sent with copies of the 9000 word OGL 1.1 under NDA to large third party producers. The OGL1.1 as presented in the leak is real and WotC/Hasbro is going full metal Nuclear Lawfare on OGL 1.0a.
We really don't know whether or not the leaked version of the OGL is really one Wizards is considering. The only source I've seen that claims to independently verify this is Griffon Saddlebag, and he seems to be the original source of the leak anyways, so he doesn't exactly look very independent. You may well be right about this, but at this point in time at least, the leaks could still be incorrect.
While I stop my spending, cancel my subscription, etc. my group will keep playing 5e because I'm not the DM currently. I'm not faulting anyone for continuing 5e as a hobby, I totally get it. I have hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours invested, lowballing. When it's my turn to run a game, maybe I'll suggest a different system to try out. I think that's a pretty healthy response, personally.
Perhaps canceling your subscription over these rumors is reasonable, but doing things such asquitting the game permanently before waiting to see whether or not these rumors are true is still overreacting.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Perhaps canceling your subscription over these rumors is reasonable, but doing things such asquitting the game permanently before waiting to see whether or not these rumors are true is still overreacting.
I can see why you'd think that.... but as a counterpoint, consider the alternative. This leaks, and the community doesn't react with outrage. We stay calm, we keep playing, we keep buying, and we wait and see. I would argue they would likely take that as a sign that they could release that version of the OGL exactly as it is and get away with it. This is exactly the time to react, and to do so strongly. I've played D&D since 2nd edition, and I don't particularly miss TSR... I'm not happy about even the rumor of Hasbro trying to get back into the old ways of They Sue Regularly.
The complete lack of response from them with regard to these rumors is quite troublesome. If this wasn't something they were looking hard at doing, why wait so long to address it? It's obvious that the community is upset, across pretty much every platform (or at least every one I watch), and while a full response can take time to draft a quick "That document isn't legitimate, it's just a hoax, we will post more details soon" comment should be pretty doable.
Even if they get around to posting something like that today, the best possible scenario is "we don't care enough about the community to have taken even five minutes out of our weekend to clear things up." That's still pretty bad.
The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak.
That... doesn't make any sense. The normal response to leaks is to move release forward, not back. I'm sure there's a reason Wizards hasn't officially released OGL 1.1 yet, but I very much doubt that reason is the leak (not impossible the reaction to the leak is relevant, but the original leak, not so much).
The reason is likely they didn't expect the MASSIVE backlash they've received from their customer base. While releasing OGL 1.1 won't outright kill D&D. Don't forget Coca-Cola's miscalculation on New Coke back in 1985 and the violent backlash they received.
Coke was getting 1,500 calls a day from customers complaining and someone even sent the President of Coca Cola (Roberto C. Goizueta) a letter written to: "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company" lol.
Maybe, D&D players and content creators (even though they the latter is most likely one and the same!) should start calling WotC and Hasbo and maybe write a litter to the "Chief Dodo, Wizards of the Coast" rofl
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
it's only a royalty on an amount OVER 750k. if they make 760k, then they only owe royalties on 10k....not the whole 760.
As I’ve thought about the OGL 1.1 situation, it occurred to me that I made the classic strategic blunder – I haven’t considered the goals and strategy of Hasbro.
I go into a lot of my thoughts on this below, but the TL:DR version is that the OGL 1.1 is a move to encourage third parties to enter into Master Agreements with Hasbro, once that third party grows to a large enough size. Additionally, OGL 1.1 allows for Hasbro to control online play – which I believe they see as the best opportunity for future value growth for the gaming portion of the Brand.
Hasbro has said that they want to monetize D&D better. I believe that they see online play as the primary sector for growth for the product, since online play avoids the classic D&D business problem – how do you move product once someone buys the core rulebooks. They also recognize the value that third party content creators bring (given their publication history), and want to allow for more integration of third party content into their online toolset while getting appropriately compensated for use of their IP.
In order to do this, they need to:
Protect their IP
Corner the market for online tools (including VTT)
Create a mechanism for easy integration of third party content into the online toolset
Maximize revenue generation from online tools
Leverage external vendors for the media and merchandising aspects of D&D
To date, the OGL 1.0a has been a boon for third party content creators but has been a mixed bag for Hasbro. While it has benefited the company through quality content creation and the growth of 5e, it has also created competition and created a situation where Hasbro is not getting direct compensation for use of their IP. It also makes negotiations related to the Hasbro online tool set with third parties extremely difficult.
It is also valuable to subdivide those impacted by the OGL in five different groups:
Small time content creators ($0 - $750k revenue)
My feeling is that Hasbro wants to use the OGL to encourage startups who provide content creation in group 1. This is the growth sector for new talent coming into the industry.
3 Party Corporations providing D&D content ($750k+ revenue)
Hasbro desires to have a working relationships with this group, but prefers to manage those relationships through a master agreement of some sort (instead of the OGL). The terms of the OGL become extremely prohibitive at this level to encourage the third party to negotiate and agree to the terms of a master agreement that provides terms for IP use, online content use and revenue sharing. This MA will allow for revenue generation for both Hasbro and the third party, and also allow easy integration of third party content into the online toolset.
3 Party Corporations publishing games derivative from older editions ($750k+ revenue)
Hasbro isn’t a fan of this group, with the major issue here being Paizo. It’s in neither sides best interest to litigate; Hasbro does not want a lawsuit with Paizo where issues around monopolization or anti-competition behaviors could lead the court to find against Hasbro and Paizo does not want the court to agree to onerous terms that would severely impact their business. I believe that the two groups negotiate and agree to terms on a settlement of some sort to avoid litigation. The terms of this agreement will create a benchmark for what is offered to smaller publishers; Hasbro wants to contain this field from an IP standpoint as well as the creation of future competitors, but also doesn’t want the bad press associated with picking on small companies (like shutting down the OSR movement), which is why OGL1.1 allows for this type of derivative work.
Online Tool Generation (VTT primarily, but also other electronic toolsets)
Hasbro has already acquired their primary toolset platform (D&D beyond) and will look to develop or (more likely) acquire a platform for their VTT. They will attempt to stifle competition as much as possible here through the threats of IP litigation to try and capture as much market share as possible. Hasbro strength here is their portfolio of IP and materials, along with owning the best character creation and online ruleset for D&D. Their biggest weakness is their very poor historical record at creating online content, which is why I see them purchasing a VTT platform and integrating it into D&D Beyond instead of developing one themselves.
Online Content Creators (Critical Role, etc.)
Hasbro’s biggest concern here is that the online content publishers are good representatives of how they want the game portrayed. I’m not as familiar with the other policy that governs this aspect of D&D, but I would expect something that allows them to prevent individuals from publishing content that presents a danger to the brand.
To me, everything Hasbro has done in the last year is aligned with this strategy, from the purchase of D&D Beyond to the release of the OGL 1.1.
Finally, I think the next big thing they will do is a change to the account structure of D&D beyond – they will no longer allow for the sharing of unlocked official content with Free Tier accounts, to encourage players to purchase the Hero Tier subscription. I also think you’ll see them increase the prices on Hero Tier to either $4.99 or $5.99 per month, and Master Tier to either $9.99 or $12.99 (with annual discount for Master Tier, and 1 month free for Hero Tier).
Finally, I think the next big thing they will do is a change to the account structure of D&D beyond – they will no longer allow for the sharing of unlocked official content with Free Tier accounts, to encourage players to purchase the Hero Tier subscription. I also think you’ll see them increase the prices on Hero Tier to either $4.99 or $5.99 per month, and Master Tier to either $9.99 or $12.99 (with annual discount for Master Tier, and 1 month free for Hero Tier).
That is when I cancel my account. I can pen and paper it. I own the books.
BTW there is a WotC customer service number that can be found online if one searches for it. I plan to call (as soon as they are open) and respectfully register a complaint about the CGL 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?
That might be ok, if they didn't blatantly say that they OWN YOUR WORK and can resell/rewrite/do with it as they will and you have no recourse, because you also have given away your rights to sue them or take any legal action.
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
it's only a royalty on an amount OVER 750k. if they make 760k, then they only owe royalties on 10k....not the whole 760.
as for your edit point.....ummm....what?
It's royalty of gross income after 750k, not profit. Not including taxes, paying employees, printing or publishing costs. If your profit margin is 20% that means 750k*0.2 that your profit out of that 750k is 150k. If you go above 750k gross income and WotC takes 25% royalty (again not profit, gross) that means you don't make any profit after that amount - in fact you make a loss.
Which means you cannot make more profit than the 150k on that margin, because the royalty percentage is equal or more to your profit margin.
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
it's only a royalty on an amount OVER 750k. if they make 760k, then they only owe royalties on 10k....not the whole 760.
as for your edit point.....ummm....what?
It's royalty of gross income after 750k, not profit. Not including taxes, paying employees, printing or publishing costs. If your profit margin is 20% that means 750k*0.2 that your profit out of that 750k is 150k. If you go above 750k gross income and WotC takes 25% royalty (again not profit, gross) that means you don't make any profit after that amount - in fact you make a loss.
Which means you cannot make more profit than the 150k on that margin, because the royalty percentage is equal or more to your profit margin.
it's gross only on the amount over 750....so again..****y the amount over 750 is tabulated for Royalties. so 25% of 10k (assuming they made 760k is 2500....that limits the profit margin for sure, but it would never become a loss. i do agree if should be net, not gross....as that would be a far easier to handle diminished return.
I wish I wasn't making this post. I've always been a D&D player, and this game has gotten me through a lot. But with the rumors and the leaks surrounding OGL 1.1, I've started to wonder if it's time to move on. I guess I'm making this post to ask what everyone plans to do. What systems are people switching to? Are we just going to stay with D&D? Are people getting together to make a new system altogether? I can't in good faith continue to play this game if the OGL releases in the state it leaked.
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
it's only a royalty on an amount OVER 750k. if they make 760k, then they only owe royalties on 10k....not the whole 760.
as for your edit point.....ummm....what?
It's royalty of gross income after 750k, not profit. Not including taxes, paying employees, printing or publishing costs. If your profit margin is 20% that means 750k*0.2 that your profit out of that 750k is 150k. If you go above 750k gross income and WotC takes 25% royalty (again not profit, gross) that means you don't make any profit after that amount - in fact you make a loss.
Which means you cannot make more profit than the 150k on that margin, because the royalty percentage is equal or more to your profit margin.
it's gross only on the amount over 750....so again..****y the amount over 750 is tabulated for Royalties. so 25% of 10k (assuming they made 760k is 2500....that limits the profit margin for sure, but it would never become a loss. i do agree if should be net, not gross....as that would be a far easier to handle diminished return.
Yes the royalty is only on the amount over 750k, we're not disagreeing here, but the 750k (without royalty) is also gross and not net. If a company has 750k gross revenue, that's not the profit it makes - it makes some percentage of that, in my presented case 20% - which is 150k profit. If they go over that 750k and have to start paying royalties (as you said, not the whole 750k) they wont make any profit after that 750k threshold, because their margin is 20%. If that's the case then everything sold after 750k is selling at a loss, because WotC takes 25% and you'd only profit 20%.
What my point is; that because of this large 25% royalty (or 20% on Kickstarter) and because WotC can change the threshold, WotC can prevent 3rd parties from competing.
Count me in
Can we call it “Blackmoor” or “Project Arneson” or the like?
I think Dave would approve.
I'm sure some kind of community system or network will arise out of this and I'm excited to see it. I doubt it will ever grow to a fraction of the titanic heights of D&D but no doubt I'll find a neat system in the making that I can contribute to. I'm sure Hasbro doesn't need my money. I've been dawdling on publishing an actual adventure module for years now and I had just decided on 5e OGL not even two weeks ago (New Year's resolution lol). Definitely not going that route now!
So I should've expected to be called out and I wanted to respect you with a response BoringBard.
I understand how you feel, TTRPG is one of my all time favorite hobbies and I feel very passionately about it too. There are people who even more necessarily passionate about now because it affects their livelihood. I think I've seen enough for me to pause on my spending with WotC and put that money into independent game makers. What I see here are people making reasonable decisions about how they use their money, which is their right. We don't have many places in WotC controlled spaces to express feedback (I was warned almost immediately in the discord) and people here are being very civil and reasonable while giving negative feedback. The folks above me have already done a thorough enough job of refuting your points so I'm going to avoid a back and forth (and more name calling!).
Despite how I feel about this morally, I think Hasbro's going to unfortunately get away with it.
It's a smart business decision. Chris Cooks and Cynthia Williams come from software and video games, where locking down your IP is proven to be effective at increasing profit while minimizing cost. Instead of the cost of having to create a product, the only expense needed to draft a new OGL is legal payroll. Doing this will perfectly situate WotC in preparation for their own VTT. With the proposed OGL 1.1, 3rd party content released under it could find itself included in that new VTT as an incentive for users to adopt. The proposed OGL 1.1 treats 3rd party IP the same was the existing DMs Guild licensing agreement does. So someone new to the company and not as familiar with the OGL (and its far reaching impact on the industry), it probably doesn't seem like a big deal to take the policy "uniform across platform."
Critical Role, Disney, Dimension 20 (maybe...), and other big players are probably already in negotiation for separate deals. Agreements will be signed or are already signed. There might not be enough resistance to test WotC in court. With the buzz of the upcoming movie, general interest in D&D will peak in a couple months and momentum for any protest/boycott will blow over. WotC might even walk a clause or two back, but they'll get an OGL 1.1 out that they think will benefit them financially. There is a clear directive that Williams promised the shareholders, she now has to monetize D&D otherwise that would be defrauding the shareholders. The VTT and DndBeyond need to succeed in order to enable that monetization, and they think tightening the reins on their IP will help ensure that success.
While I stop my spending, cancel my subscription, etc. my group will keep playing 5e because I'm not the DM currently. I'm not faulting anyone for continuing 5e as a hobby, I totally get it. I have hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours invested, lowballing. When it's my turn to run a game, maybe I'll suggest a different system to try out. I think that's a pretty healthy response, personally.
all companies care more about profits then the people
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Did you even read my post? I explicitly said that many of the concerns around this were valid, and that many people were not overreacting, panicking, or acting like the sky is falling out. What I did say was that there were some people quitting the game and cancelling their accounts game over (what is at this point in time) unconfirmed rumors and unconfirmed leaks. Many people who are doing things like this are panicking and/or overreacting. I've been participating in many threads about Open Game License 1.1 and have seen a large number of people who have been voicing their concerns, but I have also seen some people that are acting like the sky is falling out.
To quote myself from earlier, "There are some people panicking/acting like the sky is falling out". I literally said some, and last I checked some people in a group doesn't mean every person in that group. You have twisted my words drastically in order to attack and shame me over them. If you are going to respond to my posts in future, please check to see that you are responding what I actually wrote.
Also, I have already looked over the article several times. Not only does "My lawyer friend" not specify what type of lawyer he is, but going off one lawyers interpretation of something isn't necessarily the best choice when there are other lawyers who might disagree.
I "keep repeating" myself because you guys keep bringing up the same points over and over. I am listening to your guys concerns, and I am doing my best to civilly respond to them. If I am failing at that, then I truly am sorry. However, I do find it quite frustrating when comments get made about how I'm "just saying [that] everyone is being hyperbolistic" when what I am actually writing is a far cry from that.
We really don't know whether or not the leaked version of the OGL is really one Wizards is considering. The only source I've seen that claims to independently verify this is Griffon Saddlebag, and he seems to be the original source of the leak anyways, so he doesn't exactly look very independent. You may well be right about this, but at this point in time at least, the leaks could still be incorrect.
Perhaps canceling your subscription over these rumors is reasonable, but doing things such asquitting the game permanently before waiting to see whether or not these rumors are true is still overreacting.
I never said they weren't. Merely that I'm allowed to disagree.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.If you want to see what is in the OGL 1.1 that is in a final state, Indestructoboy has a copy and spent 3:38 going over the ~9000 words:
https://youtu.be/L5st8RI4ads
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I can see why you'd think that.... but as a counterpoint, consider the alternative. This leaks, and the community doesn't react with outrage. We stay calm, we keep playing, we keep buying, and we wait and see. I would argue they would likely take that as a sign that they could release that version of the OGL exactly as it is and get away with it. This is exactly the time to react, and to do so strongly. I've played D&D since 2nd edition, and I don't particularly miss TSR... I'm not happy about even the rumor of Hasbro trying to get back into the old ways of They Sue Regularly.
The complete lack of response from them with regard to these rumors is quite troublesome. If this wasn't something they were looking hard at doing, why wait so long to address it? It's obvious that the community is upset, across pretty much every platform (or at least every one I watch), and while a full response can take time to draft a quick "That document isn't legitimate, it's just a hoax, we will post more details soon" comment should be pretty doable.
Even if they get around to posting something like that today, the best possible scenario is "we don't care enough about the community to have taken even five minutes out of our weekend to clear things up." That's still pretty bad.
The reason is likely they didn't expect the MASSIVE backlash they've received from their customer base. While releasing OGL 1.1 won't outright kill D&D. Don't forget Coca-Cola's miscalculation on New Coke back in 1985 and the violent backlash they received.
Coke was getting 1,500 calls a day from customers complaining and someone even sent the President of Coca Cola (Roberto C. Goizueta) a letter written to: "Chief Dodo, The Coca-Cola Company" lol.
Maybe, D&D players and content creators (even though they the latter is most likely one and the same!) should start calling WotC and Hasbo and maybe write a litter to the "Chief Dodo, Wizards of the Coast" rofl
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I will not financially support Wizards of the Coast if they attempt to revoke any previous OGL. #opendnd
The $750k royalty threshold means that any competitor (that'd fall under OGL 1.1) that has a 20% profit margin cannot make more than $150k profit per year. WotC holds the right to adjust that royalty threshold as they see fit, which means that they can dictate how large the competition can be. It's not meant to get some cash out of the alleged <20 big earners, it's meant to keep them from growing. Even if a company could get to a profit margin of 25%, they'd still only be able to make $187,5k yearly profit at max. Royalties being 20-25% directly negates any profit that'd be made at those profit percentages after the threshold is reached.
Edit: That is also why they want you to report your revenue over $50k, so they can keep you at the size they want (as they can change the threshold).
it's only a royalty on an amount OVER 750k. if they make 760k, then they only owe royalties on 10k....not the whole 760.
as for your edit point.....ummm....what?
As I’ve thought about the OGL 1.1 situation, it occurred to me that I made the classic strategic blunder – I haven’t considered the goals and strategy of Hasbro.
I go into a lot of my thoughts on this below, but the TL:DR version is that the OGL 1.1 is a move to encourage third parties to enter into Master Agreements with Hasbro, once that third party grows to a large enough size. Additionally, OGL 1.1 allows for Hasbro to control online play – which I believe they see as the best opportunity for future value growth for the gaming portion of the Brand.
Hasbro has said that they want to monetize D&D better. I believe that they see online play as the primary sector for growth for the product, since online play avoids the classic D&D business problem – how do you move product once someone buys the core rulebooks. They also recognize the value that third party content creators bring (given their publication history), and want to allow for more integration of third party content into their online toolset while getting appropriately compensated for use of their IP.
In order to do this, they need to:
To date, the OGL 1.0a has been a boon for third party content creators but has been a mixed bag for Hasbro. While it has benefited the company through quality content creation and the growth of 5e, it has also created competition and created a situation where Hasbro is not getting direct compensation for use of their IP. It also makes negotiations related to the Hasbro online tool set with third parties extremely difficult.
It is also valuable to subdivide those impacted by the OGL in five different groups:
To me, everything Hasbro has done in the last year is aligned with this strategy, from the purchase of D&D Beyond to the release of the OGL 1.1.
Finally, I think the next big thing they will do is a change to the account structure of D&D beyond – they will no longer allow for the sharing of unlocked official content with Free Tier accounts, to encourage players to purchase the Hero Tier subscription. I also think you’ll see them increase the prices on Hero Tier to either $4.99 or $5.99 per month, and Master Tier to either $9.99 or $12.99 (with annual discount for Master Tier, and 1 month free for Hero Tier).
That is when I cancel my account. I can pen and paper it. I own the books.
BTW there is a WotC customer service number that can be found online if one searches for it. I plan to call (as soon as they are open) and respectfully register a complaint about the CGL 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?
That might be ok, if they didn't blatantly say that they OWN YOUR WORK and can resell/rewrite/do with it as they will and you have no recourse, because you also have given away your rights to sue them or take any legal action.
It's royalty of gross income after 750k, not profit. Not including taxes, paying employees, printing or publishing costs. If your profit margin is 20% that means 750k*0.2 that your profit out of that 750k is 150k. If you go above 750k gross income and WotC takes 25% royalty (again not profit, gross) that means you don't make any profit after that amount - in fact you make a loss.
Which means you cannot make more profit than the 150k on that margin, because the royalty percentage is equal or more to your profit margin.
it's gross only on the amount over 750....so again..****y the amount over 750 is tabulated for Royalties. so 25% of 10k (assuming they made 760k is 2500....that limits the profit margin for sure, but it would never become a loss. i do agree if should be net, not gross....as that would be a far easier to handle diminished return.
I wish I wasn't making this post. I've always been a D&D player, and this game has gotten me through a lot. But with the rumors and the leaks surrounding OGL 1.1, I've started to wonder if it's time to move on. I guess I'm making this post to ask what everyone plans to do. What systems are people switching to? Are we just going to stay with D&D? Are people getting together to make a new system altogether? I can't in good faith continue to play this game if the OGL releases in the state it leaked.
Yes the royalty is only on the amount over 750k, we're not disagreeing here, but the 750k (without royalty) is also gross and not net. If a company has 750k gross revenue, that's not the profit it makes - it makes some percentage of that, in my presented case 20% - which is 150k profit. If they go over that 750k and have to start paying royalties (as you said, not the whole 750k) they wont make any profit after that 750k threshold, because their margin is 20%. If that's the case then everything sold after 750k is selling at a loss, because WotC takes 25% and you'd only profit 20%.
What my point is; that because of this large 25% royalty (or 20% on Kickstarter) and because WotC can change the threshold, WotC can prevent 3rd parties from competing.