Also the royalties for above 750k pretty amount is 100% of profit above 750k plus revenue is pre-tax. It will not leave much for salary and expenses for the companies which could preclude having much money to create new content.
Also the royalties for above 750k pretty amount is 100% of profit above 750k plus revenue is pre-tax. It will not leave much for salary and expenses for the companies which could preclude having much money to create new content.
And if you did somehow figure out how to operate under those conditions, they can just change the terms to make those royalties even more oppressive and include more "competitors" at lower income levels. Just have to give you 30 days notice...
If they don't just terminate your license outright.
I.e., any profit above 750k goes to WOTC. If your margin is 20% and the royalty is 20% then you are allowed to make profit for revenue under 750k. All of your profit above the 750k goes to WOTC and your tax liability is entire revenue. So if your revenue is 1.5 million with a 20% margin you have a profit of 150k for the first 750k and nothing for the next 750k.
The general intent appears to be that no-one is actually expected to operate significantly under the >750k limit -- rather, that's the threshold at which point Wizards thinks it's worth negotiating with you. Of course, if you've already been functioning under the 1.1 OGL, they have a pretty substantial advantage in any negotiations.
Do not forget that the language says if you sign on to 1.1 WOTC can make free use of your IP. If they wish they could sell it for a low cost or give it out free.
25% of gross revenue is definitely too heavy a royalty in this industry, even with the threshold before it kicks in. I can understand them wanting a piece of the action if you're out here making millions off their license, but that amount needs to either come down or be based on net profits, preferably both.
25% of gross revenue is definitely too heavy a royalty in this industry, even with the threshold before it kicks in. I can understand them wanting a piece of the action if you're out here making millions off their license, but that amount needs to either come down or be based on net profits, preferably both.
This is WotC making sure no third party can ever get large enough to threaten them the way Paizo was a threat during the 4E era.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"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?
Do not forget that the language says if you sign on to 1.1 WOTC can make free use of your IP. If they wish they could sell it for a low cost or give it out free.
That is a surprisingly common piece of clickwrap licenses though. Basically, it's not for that, but to keep any content that you make from blocking them from making similar content. As a content creator, I am actually really unconcerned about that one. What I'm concerned about is the royalties - they're VERY high.
I don't know if this has been addressed, but the now leaked document does include a provision indicating that portions of the agreement, including the rights granted to WOTC for your property, do exist passed termination.
And I'm not a lawyer, but I did take business law as part of getting my degree in business admin which focused mostly on contract language. That shit is binding.
So with the leaked ogl WOTC can can terminate your ability to use the 1.1 ogl and can sell any content you made without giving you royalties.
Now there's a lot to hate about this version of the license. But I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the furor over this clause in particular is much ado about nothing.
Flash back to 2005. There was an airplane flick you might have heard about called Stealth. It was cheesy as hell, kind of enjoyable but totally BS. But there was an IP troll named Leo Stoller who threatened to sue Sony because he had a (spurious) trademark on the word "Stealth." Does that sound stupid to you? It does to me. You can't trademark a broad concept. But this guy had the right to his day in court. His goal was a payday.
I guarantee you, WotC does not give a damn about your homebrew campaign world. But they, like other companies whose business model depends on content publication, do care about being able to publish their campaign worlds, and they can lose a lot of money by having a spurious lawsuit push back a product release date. So clauses like this exist because they want to be able to point to that and say "regardless of apparent similarities in these two works, this person agreed to a license with us that says we can publish our works without interference."
There's a lot to object to in OGL 1.1. But this particular point is based on a drastic misapprehension of how rights assignment works and how litigious certain people are when they think they can blackmail somebody for a payday.
There is language covering the right to publish their own similar content as being their own. The right to distribute and sell content made explicitly by the non WoTC entity is a separate clause, and is explicitly mentioned later in the existence beyond termination.
Thinking like a business person the reason I would put something like this in a contract would be the following. There new shiny VTT looks like it's going to be a pain in the ass, and also very expensive, to develop content for and so they wouldn't ever want to be in a position where they are forced to de-list content.
Third party makes a piece of content and loads it up to our centralized location. We host and allow them to sell that content on our digital platforms for our new shiny VTT and other things. Something happens and either the third party or WotC terminates the license. there are provisions in the OGL for this obviously. Without the provision to distribute loyalty free WotC would have to delist and stop selling that third party content on their platform. That's bad for business generally. With this provision WotC can keep that content there despite the termination of the license, with the only actual change is now they don't have to pay you royalties.
That clause wouldn't be in the OGL. The OGL is a general purpose license. The specifics about delisting content from a creator who is removed from a central platform (like D&D Beyond) would be in the user license for the platform.
All the clauses here are in the OGL 1.1 that leaked.
Do not forget that the language says if you sign on to 1.1 WOTC can make free use of your IP. If they wish they could sell it for a low cost or give it out free.
That is a surprisingly common piece of clickwrap licenses though. Basically, it's not for that, but to keep any content that you make from blocking them from making similar content. As a content creator, I am actually really unconcerned about that one. What I'm concerned about is the royalties - they're VERY high.
I'd be fine with the clickwrap if it was platform specific like the ToS one. If I post something to their forum, and they release a book right after with something very similar in it, of course they'd want to protect themselves from any claims that they stole something they must have seen. But if I post my idea somewhere else entirely, then I have no way of proving they must have seen/taken mine in order to make theirs.
25% of gross revenue is definitely too heavy a royalty in this industry, even with the threshold before it kicks in. I can understand them wanting a piece of the action if you're out here making millions off their license, but that amount needs to either come down or be based on net profits, preferably both.
This is WotC making sure no third party can ever get large enough to threaten them the way Paizo was a threat during the 4E era.
I think they can prevent the next Paizo while still having a much more reasonable royalty. Besides, the good thing about a royalty is that the bigger your competition gets, the more you make, so creating another Paizo could even be beneficial in that context.
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.
It is going to be a very painful process to leave D&D behind, but with changes to the new ONE D&D and OGL, forget it. I will not buy another product, or support any Hasbro ventures from now on.
The thing that should be making more people recoil is that even if OGL 1.1 isn't legally enforceable, WotC, and by extension, Hasbro, don't need to win.
They just need to bury you under litigation.
There are very, very few TT gaming companies who could possibly match the war-chest that a company as big and rich as Hasbro could bring to bear in a long and drawn-out court battle. Worst of all, such an event will also prevent most companies or individuals making money off of their IP, while Hasbro can continue sucking up funds from D&D and their other Table Top franchises. Either you win ... and you're bled dry and won't be able to fight off the next round of ruinous litigation, or you settle out of court and Hasbro gets what they want anyway.
This is not new behaviour, this has happened countless times with AAA studios, movie houses and the like.
I was honestly looking forwards the OneD&D and this has left me incredibly sour and mournful for the state of the D&D communities, which are likely to fracture and spread out to other systems, either pre-existing or newly made, to get away from the D20 system and this soulless cash-grab and IP theft that Hasbro is engaging in. Will it be the death of D&D? No. But it will cripple the game and crush any hope of change and growth in the system and the community. No more new settings that aren't Ye Olde European Fantasy Realm or maybe an oft-neglected steam-punk system. No more interesting twists and takes on the character races or the nations and societies because we dare not let go of our death grip on the rotting corpse that is Faerun. No more breaths of fresh air into a community that is growing older and older with every edition, that desperately needs to inject fresh blood and new ideas, both into the community and the franchise itself, if we don't want to see it die out.
The thing that should be making more people recoil is that even if OGL 1.1 isn't legally enforceable, WotC, and by extension, Hasbro, don't need to win.
They just need to bury you under litigation.
Roll for Combats interview with Ryan Dancy has some thoughts on this - and why testing this could be catastrophic for WotC.
If wizards of the coast wants to bully people into giving them money through scare tactics, then they maybe shouldn't have spent 23 years publishing a game where a team of underestimated people bond together to take down seemingly impossible foes and loot their bodies for gold.
I dunno, seems like maybe this was the wrong audience to try to force into submission with intimidation tactics.
On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
I almost feel like it would have to be an altogether original monster, since even though the quintessential monster of D&D is the dragon, the most commonly advertised one(That I've seen), is the beholder, which is very much connected to D&D. Maybe Kobold Press could do something like the SCP community does and hold a contest to see what the community can make. If that's not realistic, I do think giants could be a very interesting take.
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also the royalties for above 750k pretty amount is 100% of profit above 750k plus revenue is pre-tax. It will not leave much for salary and expenses for the companies which could preclude having much money to create new content.
And if you did somehow figure out how to operate under those conditions, they can just change the terms to make those royalties even more oppressive and include more "competitors" at lower income levels. Just have to give you 30 days notice...
If they don't just terminate your license outright.
I.e., any profit above 750k goes to WOTC. If your margin is 20% and the royalty is 20% then you are allowed to make profit for revenue under 750k. All of your profit above the 750k goes to WOTC and your tax liability is entire revenue. So if your revenue is 1.5 million with a 20% margin you have a profit of 150k for the first 750k and nothing for the next 750k.
The general intent appears to be that no-one is actually expected to operate significantly under the >750k limit -- rather, that's the threshold at which point Wizards thinks it's worth negotiating with you. Of course, if you've already been functioning under the 1.1 OGL, they have a pretty substantial advantage in any negotiations.
Do not forget that the language says if you sign on to 1.1 WOTC can make free use of your IP. If they wish they could sell it for a low cost or give it out free.
25% of gross revenue is definitely too heavy a royalty in this industry, even with the threshold before it kicks in. I can understand them wanting a piece of the action if you're out here making millions off their license, but that amount needs to either come down or be based on net profits, preferably both.
This is WotC making sure no third party can ever get large enough to threaten them the way Paizo was a threat during the 4E era.
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.
Roll for Combat are speaking live with Ryan Dancey (former WotC D&D VP) who wrote the original OGL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vz9ogq7JTg&ab_channel=RollForCombat
"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 is a surprisingly common piece of clickwrap licenses though. Basically, it's not for that, but to keep any content that you make from blocking them from making similar content. As a content creator, I am actually really unconcerned about that one. What I'm concerned about is the royalties - they're VERY high.
#OpenDND
All the clauses here are in the OGL 1.1 that leaked.
I'd be fine with the clickwrap if it was platform specific like the ToS one. If I post something to their forum, and they release a book right after with something very similar in it, of course they'd want to protect themselves from any claims that they stole something they must have seen. But if I post my idea somewhere else entirely, then I have no way of proving they must have seen/taken mine in order to make theirs.
I think they can prevent the next Paizo while still having a much more reasonable royalty. Besides, the good thing about a royalty is that the bigger your competition gets, the more you make, so creating another Paizo could even be beneficial in that context.
This is the best thing ever.
Linus Media Group has picked up the story https://youtu.be/FvcMjWo7QjQ
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.
STILL WAITING...
It is going to be a very painful process to leave D&D behind, but with changes to the new ONE D&D and OGL, forget it. I will not buy another product, or support any Hasbro ventures from now on.
The thing that should be making more people recoil is that even if OGL 1.1 isn't legally enforceable, WotC, and by extension, Hasbro, don't need to win.
They just need to bury you under litigation.
There are very, very few TT gaming companies who could possibly match the war-chest that a company as big and rich as Hasbro could bring to bear in a long and drawn-out court battle. Worst of all, such an event will also prevent most companies or individuals making money off of their IP, while Hasbro can continue sucking up funds from D&D and their other Table Top franchises. Either you win ... and you're bled dry and won't be able to fight off the next round of ruinous litigation, or you settle out of court and Hasbro gets what they want anyway.
This is not new behaviour, this has happened countless times with AAA studios, movie houses and the like.
I was honestly looking forwards the OneD&D and this has left me incredibly sour and mournful for the state of the D&D communities, which are likely to fracture and spread out to other systems, either pre-existing or newly made, to get away from the D20 system and this soulless cash-grab and IP theft that Hasbro is engaging in. Will it be the death of D&D? No. But it will cripple the game and crush any hope of change and growth in the system and the community. No more new settings that aren't Ye Olde European Fantasy Realm or maybe an oft-neglected steam-punk system. No more interesting twists and takes on the character races or the nations and societies because we dare not let go of our death grip on the rotting corpse that is Faerun. No more breaths of fresh air into a community that is growing older and older with every edition, that desperately needs to inject fresh blood and new ideas, both into the community and the franchise itself, if we don't want to see it die out.
Edit: Frick you, Autocorrect!
Roll for Combats interview with Ryan Dancy has some thoughts on this - and why testing this could be catastrophic for WotC.
If wizards of the coast wants to bully people into giving them money through scare tactics, then they maybe shouldn't have spent 23 years publishing a game where a team of underestimated people bond together to take down seemingly impossible foes and loot their bodies for gold.
I dunno, seems like maybe this was the wrong audience to try to force into submission with intimidation tactics.
#OpenDnD
On a lighter note, those of us wanting to move away from D&D, what creature should replace "Dragon" as the quinessential monster of the next TTRPG? I think trolls/giants could work, if the setting had a bit of a norse-inspired feel to it.
I almost feel like it would have to be an altogether original monster, since even though the quintessential monster of D&D is the dragon, the most commonly advertised one(That I've seen), is the beholder, which is very much connected to D&D. Maybe Kobold Press could do something like the SCP community does and hold a contest to see what the community can make. If that's not realistic, I do think giants could be a very interesting take.
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.