That's going too far. Hasbro wants Paizo and the rest to sign a contract that is more reasonable. They don't want 3PP to stop making content, they want to profit from that content.
Actually, if you check the latest blog post they are very clear that the OGL (now) is only meant to be for "content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose."
They are saying they do want them to stop making D&D content, and that the OGL is not for other businesses just fans. I didn't think they'd so massively misunderstand the role of the OGL in the D&D ecosystem to state it that explicitly, but there it is. It's like Major League Baseball calling Minor League and Farm League teams "major corporations" that need to stop what they are doing. I guess the ultimate problem is that they do not see a D&D ecosystem at all. They see themselves as the only D&D and everything else as parasites or customers.
Of course they want Paizo and the other big players making D&D content. But they want them to do that via a custom license, not the OGL. At the end of the day they are competitors, and that's how competitors do business.
That's going too far. Hasbro wants Paizo and the rest to sign a contract that is more reasonable. They don't want 3PP to stop making content, they want to profit from that content.
Anyone with any business sense knows that asking someone to sign a document that gives you 25% of their PROFITS know that is code for, yea, stop doing this.
Not even profits - revenue/income. Which makes it far worse, because if your revenue is only $750k as a publisher your profit is going to maybe only a ten thousand dollars at most. That's tiny.
Yeah the majority of gamers that I play with are people that like, followed an artist on Tumblr that they really loved, who got heavily into DND, and so they decided to try it out. Or I know someone that fell in love with watching TTRPG's like Dimenson 20, she's obsessed with everything Brennan makes/does, and so she wanted to learn to play the game. I know more players right now that are playing the game because of artists and third party creators in some way shape or form than people who wandered into a comic book store and happened to find a WotC dnd book and decide to give it a whirl.
I mean jeeze it's a community game of complex math and rules systems, it's going to need an actual 'in' for like, 99% of people out there. And that 'in' is not going to be WotC, because they do virtually nothing to advertise or engage people in the game. I've never seen a commercial on TV telling me to play D&D, or seen an advert in a magazine or anything like that; why would anyone attribute the game's success to WoTC rather than the far more visible and constant content creators that talk about, promote, and build the DND community?
Yeah the majority of gamers that I play with are people that like, followed an artist on Tumblr that they really loved, who got heavily into DND, and so they decided to try it out. Or I know someone that fell in love with watching TTRPG's like Dimenson 20, she's obsessed with everything Brennan makes/does, and so she wanted to learn to play the game. I know more players right now that are playing the game because of artists and third party creators in some way shape or form than people who wandered into a comic book store and happened to find a WotC dnd book and decide to give it a whirl.
I mean jeeze it's a community game of complex math and rules systems, it's going to need an actual 'in' for like, 99% of people out there. And that 'in' is not going to be WotC, because they do virtually nothing to advertise or engage people in the game. I've never seen a commercial on TV telling me to play D&D, or seen an advert in a magazine or anything like that; why would anyone attribute the game's success to WoTC rather than the far more visible and constant content creators that talk about, promote, and build the DND community?
Back in the day before there was an AD&D or modules from TSR, if you wanted material for your game you depended on Judges Guild for the good stuff.
Third party creators kept this game going from the beginning.
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.
Back in the day before there was an AD&D or modules from TSR, if you wanted material for your game you depended on Judges Guild for the good stuff.
Third party creators kept this game going from the beginning.
They still will. With the licenseback and royalty clauses gone, the only thing left of concern is the 30 days notice modification, but we can keep that from being included too.
Yeah the majority of gamers that I play with are people that like, followed an artist on Tumblr that they really loved, who got heavily into DND, and so they decided to try it out. Or I know someone that fell in love with watching TTRPG's like Dimenson 20, she's obsessed with everything Brennan makes/does, and so she wanted to learn to play the game. I know more players right now that are playing the game because of artists and third party creators in some way shape or form than people who wandered into a comic book store and happened to find a WotC dnd book and decide to give it a whirl.
^ All of this stuff is covered by the Fan Content Policy, not OGL.
That's going too far. Hasbro wants Paizo and the rest to sign a contract that is more reasonable. They don't want 3PP to stop making content, they want to profit from that content.
Anyone with any business sense knows that asking someone to sign a document that gives you 25% of their PROFITS know that is code for, yea, stop doing this.
Not even profits - revenue/income. Which makes it far worse, because if your revenue is only $750k as a publisher your profit is going to maybe only a ten thousand dollars at most. That's tiny.
I capitalized it for emphasis, and then still put the wrong word lol. I fixed it now, good catch and thanks.
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
Back in the day before there was an AD&D or modules from TSR, if you wanted material for your game you depended on Judges Guild for the good stuff.
Third party creators kept this game going from the beginning.
They still will. With the licenseback and royalty clauses gone, the only thing left of concern is the 30 days notice modification, but we can keep that from being included too
No, they pulled one over on you. You have to AGREE to the license back, but just as before, you agree to it when you accept the license. Until we see the legal language of the license, this FAQ was complete BS. Royalty clause is not gone, just slightly diminished. Actually reading through the PR nonsense of this, there is very little difference between OGL 1.1 (which was NOT draft s it went to multiple third parties with contracts) and OGL 2.0. The Grace period of 6 months to put out more stuff under 1.0a only comes if you AGREE to OGL 2.0. Tht is even worse than before because they are attempting to TRAP third parties into not being sued while putting out their remining OGL 1.0a projects!
This is even more despicable than their last attempt because they are dressing it up with PR lies.
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.
No, they pulled one over on you. You have to AGREE to the license back, but just as before, you agree to it when you accept the license. Until we see the legal language of the license, this FAQ was complete BS. Royalty clause is not gone, just slightly diminished.
The 'leaked 2.0' people seem to be talking about is what was supposed to be released yesterday. Which wasn't actually released, and is probably a dead document at this point. My suspicion is that the 2.0 license is still being rewritten (and the faq is a trial balloon).
You're wrong. The provisions regarding content moderation are entirely principled in action and no rational person would have a problem with them.
What I find telling about you is that you feel that 99.9% of people agree with you while you're simultaneously surprised that people here support that provision. Figure it out bud.
You're making the mistake of believing that the 0.1% of people on internet forums and twitter represent what regular people think. The internet and social media is not real life.
No, they pulled one over on you. You have to AGREE to the license back, but just as before, you agree to it when you accept the license. Until we see the legal language of the license, this FAQ was complete BS. Royalty clause is not gone, just slightly diminished.
The 'leaked 2.0' people seem to be talking about is what was supposed to be released yesterday. Which wasn't actually released, and is probably a dead document at this point. My suspicion is that the 2.0 license is still being rewritten (and the faq is a trial balloon).
Maybe, but even the FAQ is BS. They re still deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a, which Paizo has said they are ready to go to court over. The risk is ENORMOUS for WotC to take it to court. There is a chance that D&D rules get treated like ALL OTHER game rules by legal precedent which means they cannot copyright the mechanics should it be ruled that way and a judge can certainly do that in this case even if not asked to.
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.
What should surprise me most about this thread is that so many people don't believe in a personal right to freedom of speech. The founders of the US believed (and I believe) that people are born with an inherent right to freedom of speech. Saying "freedom of speech doesn't apply because muh private company" is ignoring the principal. The Slaughter person believes in the principal. Most of you here, don't appear to.
Besides, do you really think Hasbro/WotC care about so called "hate speech"? No, they care about fear of mob cancellation after some so-called "journalist" on twitter writes a click-bait article about how some 3rd party creator is an ist-phobe. (All the ists, all the phobes) Hate speech is a term that journalists use to generate clicks. It's a non-issue for 99.9% of grown-ups.
But back to my first sentence, I'm not really surprised at all.
THIS JUST IN
DnDBeyond user found to believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America wanted to take away the people's ability to tell each other to shut up.
I said the complete opposite, actually. Telling people to shut up is censorship.
The best solution to speech you don't like is to counter it with speech that wins. Censorship doesn't change people's minds. Instead it drives them from the spotlight, where they find like minded people, grow in number and eventually become more powerful. It's better to debunk them in the spotlight. And possibly change their mind.
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
You said it best: "The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success." There's nothing in there about subsidizing competitors, which is what the current OGL is also doing.
To start, here is what this thread is not about: It is not about the contents of the alleged draft OGL 1.1.It is not about wild speculation.It is not about unproductive commentary like “Wizards is doing this because they are evil.”If you want to engage in that or respond to any posts others make about that, there are a dozen or so other threads to choose from.
This thread is about addressing a certain argument that has been raised on those other threads - the proposition that the OGL did not need to change.This proposition is incorrect, as is plainly apparent from actual statements from Wizards and actual facts about recent events and how Wizards operates as a company.
Below, I will spell out the five reasons (presented in no particular order) Wizards has given or heavily implied are their reasons for changing OGL 1.0, all of which follow from this article.There may be other reasons as well, but this is sticking just with actual facts and statements, and the reasonable extrapolation therefrom in light of other tangible facts.
Reason One: NFTs
As Wizards mentioned in the OGL article on this site, one of the reasons they need to update the OGL is to ensure it cannot be used for “third-parties to mint D&D NFTs”
NFTs are, as is widely known, a rather predatory bubble - both predatory in terms of commonly ripping off others’ intellectual property rights and in how they are marketed to folks as a get-rich-quick scheme that is little more than an exploitative bubble.Like most other things that rely on blockchain, they are also an ecological disaster, consuming huge amounts of energy during transactions.As such, there are incredibly obvious reasons Wizards would not want to be associated with these commodities, especially as controlled by third-parties.
The current OGL is silent on NFTs and could allow their creation - which makes sense, when OGL 1.0 was drafted, the idea of an NFT did not exist, except perhaps in parody.Thus, an update to address NFTs is needed to protect both customers and the brand from
Reason Two: Protecting Wizards from racism and other forms of bigotry being published with their branding.
As folks likely know, content published under the OGL must contain various notices of the use of Wizards’ intellectual property.This very easily could result in racist content that is directly tied to Wizards of the Coast - something which both reflects poorly on the game and on the player base itself.Wizards has expressed a desire to change the OGL to better limit hate speech and bigotry published under their brand.
Recent events have put this weakness of the current OGL to the forefront of Wizards’ mind.Ernest Gygax - one of D&D’s founders, son of Gary, and original player of Tenser (which is an anagram for Ernest) - is presently being sued for taking Wizards intellectual property and tarnishing the brand by releasing racist content under that brand name.Specifically, he is trying to publish a new version of Star Frontiers, which Wizards owns and which Wizards still licenses the same of pdfs of old rule books for, with content like “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others” (actual quote) and worse.
That lawsuit has exposed an inherent weakness in OGL 1.0 - Star Frontiers has a substantial amount of protection from folks who would illegally use Wizards’ IP for racist purposes, but OGL 1.0 opens up publication of D&D-tied content with similarly horrific language contained within.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have not had a major figure like Ernest Gygax attempt to abuse OGL 1.0 in this manner.It likely was not even a major concern in their mind when OGL 1.0 was drafted.But the existence of one such instance indicates the possibilities of others, and luck is hardly the shield explicit contractual language would be.Rather than risk another Star Frontiers situation, but this time with content Wizards has freely given the community, updating the OGL to prevent this kind of third-party content is the most sensible course of action.
Reason Three: Data collection.
Wizards has consistently said that sales data is one of their most important assets.For both D&D and Magic, they have talked about how carefully they collect and track product data to know what types of product players like, and determine what settings, themes, and other elements folks enjoy.
When OGL 1.0 was drafted, Wizards likely did not know the extent to which 5e would take off. Many elements in 5e’s success were external - Stranger Things, shows like Critical Role becoming cultural phenomenons, a global pandemic - greatly expanding D&D’s popularity to new heights.
This in turn led to a surge in third party content being created - content Wizards does not necessarily receive sales data on.This unprecedented surge in third-party sales impacts Wizards’ ability to better tune and target their own products as they do not receive the same level of data collection they historically relied upon.The reporting requirements Wizards has stated the new OGL will contain for larger third-party developers are all but certainly designed to help recapture this otherwise lost data.
Reason Four: “Exploitation” (Wizards’ word) of Wizards’ IP by third-parties.
Right now, there is nothing stopping Amazon or any other large company from mass producing mass-scale products rivalling D&D.Recently, Amazon dipped its toes in the D&D business with their publication of Critical Role’s Vox Machina.While Critical Role did an admirable job respecting Wizards’ rights with the show, Amazon is not exactly known for being the most respectful of other people’s products and designs.An updated OGL will prevent someone like Amazon from releasing a product at a scale unprecedented by existing third-party contributors.
Reason Five: Recapturing Lost Revenue.
Almost certainly the most controversial on this list, Wizards is clearly return to recapture revenue from the largest creators (they have said there are only about twenty such creators at the scale for their royalty component to kick in).
D&D is and always has been the largest tabletop RPG - the data saying Pathfinder sold more than D&D 4e is incomplete - it looks only at local game store sales, which are stores frequented by folks already inclined toward gaming.It ignores big box stores, major bookstore chains, and Amazon, all of which are more frequented by folks who are more casual gamers. Casual gamers are going to gravitate toward the name they recognise, and no name in the industry is more recognisable than Dungeons & Dragons.Additionally, the LGS data misses the subscription service D&D Insider, which provided the totality of 4e content online. As such, the LGS sales data misses two major chunks of 4e sales, both of which would put 4e above Pathfinder for the general populations
Why is that relevant?The major third party creators want to make products compatible with D&D - it is better to take a small chunk out of a big pie, than a slightly larger chunk out of a small pie. They have grown to the size they have specifically because they are relying on Wizards’ intellectual property and (more importantly) Wizards’ unrivalled popularity and brand recognition within the industry.
They are successful because of Wizards and the OGL while simultaneously siphoning customers to their products and away from Wizards’, and Wizards wants to reclaim a portion of those lost profits, receiving some compensation for the fact those third-parties would not be as large as they are if they had relied on non-Wizards intellectual property.
Now, there is legitimate reason for controversy on this point - it can be argued that those third parties are providing advertising and increase Wizards’ prestige and encourage folks who might not otherwise buy D&D product to buy official content.That is a legitimate topic of conversation, and one you can bet Wizards is discussing and negotiating with the twenty or so third party sellers at a sufficiently large scale for royalties to kick in. It is not something we on the forums can really discuss, as it would involve complex financial records and data we simply do not have access to.
TL;DR:The world has changed a lot since OGL 1.0, in terms of the game’s popularity, threats which did not exist or were not apparent at the time of OGL 1.0 (NFTs, major content producers creating racist content with Wizards’ intellectual property, ultra-corporations setting their eyes on D&D content), and a rise of third party sales unprecedented by early editions.
OGL 1.0 does not address the realities of the world we live in and needs to be updated.The exact shape of the update is still to be decided—and what form that update should take is one I am sure folks will be debating on other threads up to and beyond the OGL 1.1 release.
Reasons One and Two: They could have added stipulations about these issues without making the changes they are pushing, which have almost nothing to do with the stated issues.
Reason Three: Personally, I think you are naïve if you believe this. I also think you are placing the cart before the horse. Phenomena like Critical Role paved the way. The pandemic simply super charged that growth. But it began outside of Hasbro. The OGL has been a positive in that it helped them capture market share even when their own products were substandard. Look at recent releases for examples. Monsters of the Multiverse might be an exception, but most the the recent stuff has been sub-par while the third party community kept consumers focused on 5e, rather than moving to other systems.
Reason Four: Copywrite law would prevent this. No one under OGL can reproduce any of WotC's non- SRD materials. Since WotC gives SRD away for free, there is no potential for lost revenue.
Reason Five: Revenue comes from good products. If Hasbro wants more money, that might be a good place to start. Invest in your business instead of trying to destroy your competitors. Most companies who take the approach you advocate see their products lag and eventually lose massive market share.
In reality the coincidence between your post and the proposed changes makes this look like justification. Even if it needs to change the fact that these folks are mocking their consumer base and foisting draconian and greedy updates to the OGL model invalidates your points. Better to leave it as is for now until leadership can be changed because at this point their primary concern is cleaning the shit out of the bed.
In reality the coincidence between your post and the proposed changes makes this look like justification. Even if it needs to change the fact that these folks are mocking their consumer base and foisting draconian and greedy updates to the OGL model invalidates your points. Better to leave it as is for now until leadership can be changed because at this point their primary concern is cleaning the shit out of the bed.
The issue here is that the rival bedframe dealership is offering a sweet deal to all the matress enthusiasts because of said Scat infested bedding.
You're wrong. The provisions regarding content moderation are entirely principled in action and no rational person would have a problem with them.
What I find telling about you is that you feel that 99.9% of people agree with you while you're simultaneously surprised that people here support that provision. Figure it out bud.
You say that people support the idea... sure, people love to have things they don't like suppressed. But then things they do like are suppressed and things they don't aren't because those making the decisions aren't them.
And that's the issue with content moderation. It is solely in the eyes of the moderator, one or very few people who choose for all.
Fine. But WOTC has a bigger problem now that it has been revealed that in addition to the changes to OGL upper leadership is mocking consumer base. They've got to go. I'm not sending them another dime until they've gotten rid of the current leadership. They've demonstrated they are predatory money grubbers who'd fleece their most ardent consumers for a quick buck. "We'll just wait until they forget" sorry WOTC you picked the wrong group to pull this stick on. It's an intelligent and technologically sophisticated user base with lots of options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Of course they want Paizo and the other big players making D&D content. But they want them to do that via a custom license, not the OGL. At the end of the day they are competitors, and that's how competitors do business.
Not even profits - revenue/income. Which makes it far worse, because if your revenue is only $750k as a publisher your profit is going to maybe only a ten thousand dollars at most. That's tiny.
Yeah the majority of gamers that I play with are people that like, followed an artist on Tumblr that they really loved, who got heavily into DND, and so they decided to try it out. Or I know someone that fell in love with watching TTRPG's like Dimenson 20, she's obsessed with everything Brennan makes/does, and so she wanted to learn to play the game. I know more players right now that are playing the game because of artists and third party creators in some way shape or form than people who wandered into a comic book store and happened to find a WotC dnd book and decide to give it a whirl.
I mean jeeze it's a community game of complex math and rules systems, it's going to need an actual 'in' for like, 99% of people out there. And that 'in' is not going to be WotC, because they do virtually nothing to advertise or engage people in the game. I've never seen a commercial on TV telling me to play D&D, or seen an advert in a magazine or anything like that; why would anyone attribute the game's success to WoTC rather than the far more visible and constant content creators that talk about, promote, and build the DND community?
Back in the day before there was an AD&D or modules from TSR, if you wanted material for your game you depended on Judges Guild for the good stuff.
Third party creators kept this game going from the beginning.
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.
They still will. With the licenseback and royalty clauses gone, the only thing left of concern is the 30 days notice modification, but we can keep that from being included too.
^ All of this stuff is covered by the Fan Content Policy, not OGL.
I capitalized it for emphasis, and then still put the wrong word lol. I fixed it now, good catch and thanks.
It is clear that any alteration to the current Open Gaming License (OGL) not only signifies a desire to implement further changes, but also reveals the direction in which these changes will be heading. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that if the community were to accept this "harsh" version of the OGL, the data collected would not be used to prioritize profit over the well-being of content creators.
The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success. However, now that the community has grown and thrived under the current OGL, it is both immature and greed-driven to change the terms of the agreement.
No, they pulled one over on you. You have to AGREE to the license back, but just as before, you agree to it when you accept the license. Until we see the legal language of the license, this FAQ was complete BS. Royalty clause is not gone, just slightly diminished. Actually reading through the PR nonsense of this, there is very little difference between OGL 1.1 (which was NOT draft s it went to multiple third parties with contracts) and OGL 2.0. The Grace period of 6 months to put out more stuff under 1.0a only comes if you AGREE to OGL 2.0. Tht is even worse than before because they are attempting to TRAP third parties into not being sued while putting out their remining OGL 1.0a projects!
This is even more despicable than their last attempt because they are dressing it up with PR lies.
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.
The 'leaked 2.0' people seem to be talking about is what was supposed to be released yesterday. Which wasn't actually released, and is probably a dead document at this point. My suspicion is that the 2.0 license is still being rewritten (and the faq is a trial balloon).
You're making the mistake of believing that the 0.1% of people on internet forums and twitter represent what regular people think. The internet and social media is not real life.
Maybe, but even the FAQ is BS. They re still deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a, which Paizo has said they are ready to go to court over. The risk is ENORMOUS for WotC to take it to court. There is a chance that D&D rules get treated like ALL OTHER game rules by legal precedent which means they cannot copyright the mechanics should it be ruled that way and a judge can certainly do that in this case even if not asked to.
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.
Again, you're relying on a leak of a document that wasn't not actually released.
I don't trust Wizards, but I'm not going to say they're lying without actual evidence.
I said the complete opposite, actually. Telling people to shut up is censorship.
The best solution to speech you don't like is to counter it with speech that wins. Censorship doesn't change people's minds. Instead it drives them from the spotlight, where they find like minded people, grow in number and eventually become more powerful. It's better to debunk them in the spotlight. And possibly change their mind.
You said it best: "The original purpose of the OGL was to create a level playing field for all members of the community, in order to foster growth and success." There's nothing in there about subsidizing competitors, which is what the current OGL is also doing.
Reasons One and Two: They could have added stipulations about these issues without making the changes they are pushing, which have almost nothing to do with the stated issues.
Reason Three: Personally, I think you are naïve if you believe this. I also think you are placing the cart before the horse. Phenomena like Critical Role paved the way. The pandemic simply super charged that growth. But it began outside of Hasbro. The OGL has been a positive in that it helped them capture market share even when their own products were substandard. Look at recent releases for examples. Monsters of the Multiverse might be an exception, but most the the recent stuff has been sub-par while the third party community kept consumers focused on 5e, rather than moving to other systems.
Reason Four: Copywrite law would prevent this. No one under OGL can reproduce any of WotC's non- SRD materials. Since WotC gives SRD away for free, there is no potential for lost revenue.
Reason Five: Revenue comes from good products. If Hasbro wants more money, that might be a good place to start. Invest in your business instead of trying to destroy your competitors. Most companies who take the approach you advocate see their products lag and eventually lose massive market share.
In reality the coincidence between your post and the proposed changes makes this look like justification. Even if it needs to change the fact that these folks are mocking their consumer base and foisting draconian and greedy updates to the OGL model invalidates your points. Better to leave it as is for now until leadership can be changed because at this point their primary concern is cleaning the shit out of the bed.
The issue here is that the rival bedframe dealership is offering a sweet deal to all the matress enthusiasts because of said Scat infested bedding.
Paizo Calls it "ORC".
You say that people support the idea... sure, people love to have things they don't like suppressed. But then things they do like are suppressed and things they don't aren't because those making the decisions aren't them.
And that's the issue with content moderation. It is solely in the eyes of the moderator, one or very few people who choose for all.
Fine. But WOTC has a bigger problem now that it has been revealed that in addition to the changes to OGL upper leadership is mocking consumer base. They've got to go. I'm not sending them another dime until they've gotten rid of the current leadership. They've demonstrated they are predatory money grubbers who'd fleece their most ardent consumers for a quick buck. "We'll just wait until they forget" sorry WOTC you picked the wrong group to pull this stick on. It's an intelligent and technologically sophisticated user base with lots of options.