How about the spirit of the deal that was struck between TSR and WotC when they created the OGL?
They explicitly wanted third party protections to create.
I don't buy this nonsense about NFTs, racism, or Jeff Bezos coming for DnD. The reason is MONEY. They want more of it and are undermining the original deal struck with TSR. Now, you might be able to argue against the OGL in a court of law, found loopholes, and even convince some people on here to take a bite of this shit sandwich.
ME? I have already cancelled and will provide zero revenue to WotC until they back down.
There was no "deal" struck between TSR and WotC other than WotC would pay the owners of TSR money and take ownership of TSR. The OGL was entirely the product of WotC. Ryan Dancey was part of the team that coordinated the acquisition of TSR. He saw the books and understood well the business problems within TSR. For one thing, the setting bloat was a money sink. Bottom line, there were certain settings that were profitable but most were not. Forgotten Realms being the most profitable, they went with that as a base setting and put the rest on a shelf.
You see, the largest portion of revenue comes from the crunch (rules books), not the fluff(settings, lore, adventures, etc). The money made from the crunch funded the fluff, but TSR went way over board on the fluff. Ryan Dancey had to find some way so that there could be profitable Crunch and some profitable Fluff, but also so there was enough fluff to feed the need for the crunch to expand and grow.
Enter allowing third parties to use the vast majority of the crunch in order to publish fluff without the fear of being sued, like had happened under TSR during the Lorraine Williams era. Yes, this would allow any company to create another game almost exactly like D&D but without the brand and some proper named monsters, spells, characters, etc. Didn't matter, that brand and those known proper names combined with WotC creative would suffice to keep all hounds at bay, and it did.
And thus the OGL became the brainchild of Ryan Dancey.
In 2008, a greedy Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg wanted more money and thus withdrew 4E from the OGL and licensed it under the GSL. This stifled third party fluff creativity and damaged the brand, resulting in the rise of Pathfinder from Paizo. It was always known this could happen, it's just nobody thought Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg would be STUPID ENOUGH to let it happen.
Please also note, both Lisa Stevens and Jim Butler were a part of Ryan Dancey's team that put together the OGL and knew full well what it implied and how it worked. This is of note because Lisa Stevens is the owner of Paizo and Jim Butler is the CEO of Paizo. Yep, the top leadership of Paizo were part of the team that created what we are calling OGL 1.0a and they have the receipts as to why, regardless of any argument Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg care to make, the OGL 1.0a CANNOT be "de-authorized" (aka revoked).
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.
Please also note, both Lisa Stevens and Jim Butler were a part of Ryan Dancey's team that put together the OGL and knew full well what it implied and how it worked. This is of note because Lisa Stevens is the owner of Paizo and Jim Butler is the CEO of Paizo. Yep, the top leadership of Paizo were part of the team that created what we are calling OGL 1.0a and they have the receipts as to why, regardless of any argument Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg care to make, the OGL 1.0a CANNOT be "de-authorized" (aka revoked).
Sounds like an even better reason for WotC to try.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Pathfinder 1 and I'm very glad Paizo exists. But expecting WotC to just roll over and take it when their main competitors are the architects behind the license that fueled their rise to prominence is puerile at best. Especially when that license is capable of being used to drive creations well beyond what Dancey could have credibly foreseen. The OGL can be a force for good, and an entry point to the industry, without blowing the barn door entirely off its hinges.
You mean how Paizo were recently making some of their adventures available for 5th edition, which doesn't at all hurt Wizards of the Coast. They couldn't make that for 5e (without a special agreement with Paizo --how likely would that be now?). But it did mean that one of the biggest competitors (if you can really call them that) were making content for WotC's game. Paizo make better stuff with better quality than wizards do too, at least in my experience. I'm not even a huge fan of Paizo, but they're not really threatening WotC.
One might even add that many believe that Pathfinder kept people in the hobby when players left D&D because of 4th edition and when 5th was released, they eventually returned. Doesn't really seem like even the biggest name is a parasite to me.
so if your work is based on their SRD, you will have agreed to use the gaming terminology included in that document. This is neither remarkable nor controversial.
This is also not how the OGL works. There has never been an agreement to necessarily use their terminology. Even in the drafts of the new license, as bad as they are, this is not part of them.
I never said the OGL includes that. The System Reference Document (SRD) does. You certainly don't have to use the SRD to use the OGL, but doing so confers benefits in exchange for some restrictions.
I understand that and I am saying you are wrong. Using the OGL and SRD does not create any of the terminology restrictions you claimed above. The OGL allows you to use as much or as little of the SRD as you like and to change and rework as much or as little as you like in any way you like. Heck, Green Ronin created a modern day superhero out of the OGL and SRD. Many have made sci fi games, westerns, etc. There is nothing in the OGL nor SRD restricting how much you can change it.
You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding how the OGL actually works.
Then what precisely are Headless and Craykard crying about? They can use "race" even if the SRD is updated to "species" all they want.
Not under the terms OGL 2.0 is claiming to have. Hasbro is highlighting that the new OGL will give Hasbro the power to prevent certain products from being released that Hasbro deems as racist.
While we can agree that blatant racism is wrong, what should the OGL permit for marginal items where a huge range of opinions exist, like the word “Race”?
I don’t like giving Hasbro the legal power to censor products for marginal concepts like this. You can say that it’s highly unlikely that they would ban a product for the word “Race”, but given Hasbro’s recent behavior, I have zero trust or confidence in any promise they give right now.
Not under the terms OGL 2.0 is claiming to have. Hasbro is highlighting that the new OGL will give Hasbro the power to prevent certain products from being released that Hasbro deems as racist.
While we can agree that blatant racism is wrong, what should the OGL permit for marginal items where a huge range of opinions exist, like the word “Race”?
I don’t like giving Hasbro the legal power to censor products for marginal concepts like this. You can say that it’s highly unlikely that they would ban a product for the word “Race”, but given Hasbro’s recent behavior, I have zero trust or confidence in any promise they give right now.
If a 3PP is that deathly afraid they'll come after them for using the term "race" then they don't need to use Wizards' license or IP. Their fear is neither WotC's problem nor mine.
Please also note, both Lisa Stevens and Jim Butler were a part of Ryan Dancey's team that put together the OGL and knew full well what it implied and how it worked. This is of note because Lisa Stevens is the owner of Paizo and Jim Butler is the CEO of Paizo. Yep, the top leadership of Paizo were part of the team that created what we are calling OGL 1.0a and they have the receipts as to why, regardless of any argument Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg care to make, the OGL 1.0a CANNOT be "de-authorized" (aka revoked).
Sounds like an even better reason for WotC to try.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Pathfinder 1 and I'm very glad Paizo exists. But expecting WotC to just roll over and take it when their main competitors are the architects behind the license that fueled their rise to prominence is puerile at best. Especially when that license is capable of being used to drive creations well beyond what Dancey could have credibly foreseen. The OGL can be a force for good, and an entry point to the industry, without blowing the barn door entirely off its hinges.
They both were WotC employees and acted on behalf of WotC with full understanding. There is nothing about that which alters the fact that the OGL 1.0a can never be revoked. They left WotC after the sale of WotC made them millions, moving on to create Paizo and produce OGL and D20 compliant materials. The ONLY reason Pathfinder came about is because of the odious conditions of the GSL, the fact that WotC/Hasbro cancelled a long standing contract for Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and basically put Paizo on the verge of bankruptcy.
What would you expect them to do at that point?
Nope, acting as agents of WotC and now profitting from what was done then is not an argument in court against the fact that you cannot revoke OGL 1.0a.
As to things Ryan Dancey could not conceive of, about the only things he claims wasn't thought of that came about is block chain (which is a red herring as NFTs are artwork,. not text) and people actually spending 4 hours watching voice actors play D&D online.
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.
so if your work is based on their SRD, you will have agreed to use the gaming terminology included in that document. This is neither remarkable nor controversial.
This is also not how the OGL works. There has never been an agreement to necessarily use their terminology. Even in the drafts of the new license, as bad as they are, this is not part of them.
I never said the OGL includes that. The System Reference Document (SRD) does. You certainly don't have to use the SRD to use the OGL, but doing so confers benefits in exchange for some restrictions.
I understand that and I am saying you are wrong. Using the OGL and SRD does not create any of the terminology restrictions you claimed above. The OGL allows you to use as much or as little of the SRD as you like and to change and rework as much or as little as you like in any way you like. Heck, Green Ronin created a modern day superhero out of the OGL and SRD. Many have made sci fi games, westerns, etc. There is nothing in the OGL nor SRD restricting how much you can change it.
You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding how the OGL actually works.
Then what precisely are Headless and Craykard crying about? They can use "race" even if the SRD is updated to "species" all they want.
Not under the terms OGL 2.0 is claiming to have. Hasbro is highlighting that the new OGL will give Hasbro the power to prevent certain products from being released that Hasbro deems as racist.
While we can agree that blatant racism is wrong, what should the OGL permit for marginal items where a huge range of opinions exist, like the word “Race”?
I don’t like giving Hasbro the legal power to censor products for marginal concepts like this. You can say that it’s highly unlikely that they would ban a product for the word “Race”, but given Hasbro’s recent behavior, I have zero trust or confidence in any promise they give right now.
Honestly, I'm not really willing to trust any company who's definition of racism changes with a twitter storm.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we had worked very well, and nothing needed to be changed.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we hadhave workedworks very well, and nothing neededneeds to be changed.
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.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we hadhave workedworks very well, and nothing neededneeds to be changed.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Well, it's always hard to speak for a community. But let me venture that probably the only change the community will accept from OGL 1.0a is the clarification that it is an irrevocable and perpetual license.
Anything else will hurt WoTC because it will be a betrayal.
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
Not going to happen.
WotC has been quite clear lately that ORCs are evil. Always have been, always will be.
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we had worked very well, and nothing needed to be changed.
I know YOU are against changing it. But you aren't the community.
There's no point in even talking about the OGL at this point. That ship has sailed. No one is signing OGL 2.0. One D&D will be unsupported by any significant third party.
The fate of OGL 1.0a will be decided in court. So maybe we still get 5e content. Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC). Even companies that use other systems are signing on. The Open Gaming License is essential dead as a tool for the rpg industry.
I've been playing since '80. Now that we'vbe dispensed with the "I've been doing this longer argument, you can sit down and listen. Do you know what Paizo did with Pathfinder? It sounds like you don't so let me explain. They took a version of the game that WotC had decided to abandon and they expanded upon it. WotC misread their customer base (does this sound familiar from anywhere?) and in trying to replace them with video gamers who played WoW, they designed a radically different 4e. Pathfinder didn't out do them. Paizo simply understood the customer base better and kept making what those customers wanted, products that WotC had no intention of making.
All of this comes down to one thing. Customers are just too darned stubborn to give WotC direct access to their bank account. The NERVE of us! We actually want them to create products that we find compelling enough to voluntarily spend our money on. It's crazy! And because Hasbro isn't doing well at understanding their customers and they keep bringing in finance people who have no clue about this hobby, they are failing to make their revenue goals. But they have a solution!
WotC thinking: Those other companies are doing a better job at capturing the interest (and money) of our customers, but what if those companies didn't exist? Then they would HAVE to give us their money, right?
You do understand the difference between gross revenues and profit, correct? OGL 1.1 was intended to cause every single competitor to become wildly unprofitable unless they made their products ludicrously expensive (which would have increased revenues and so increased royalties, recursively). This was an attempt to straight out eliminate all of the companies who are making popular content while WotC releases Spelljammer quality products.
While they are busy spending time making new dice sets, they appear not to be making their product actually work. Go play a clockwork soul sorcerer from Tasha's. That was released HOW long ago? But hey, there are new dice this month and other things that might have a cosmetic impact but take very little time to develop and generate a large per unit profit. It's a really good thing no one wants the site to actually work!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There was no "deal" struck between TSR and WotC other than WotC would pay the owners of TSR money and take ownership of TSR. The OGL was entirely the product of WotC. Ryan Dancey was part of the team that coordinated the acquisition of TSR. He saw the books and understood well the business problems within TSR. For one thing, the setting bloat was a money sink. Bottom line, there were certain settings that were profitable but most were not. Forgotten Realms being the most profitable, they went with that as a base setting and put the rest on a shelf.
You see, the largest portion of revenue comes from the crunch (rules books), not the fluff(settings, lore, adventures, etc). The money made from the crunch funded the fluff, but TSR went way over board on the fluff. Ryan Dancey had to find some way so that there could be profitable Crunch and some profitable Fluff, but also so there was enough fluff to feed the need for the crunch to expand and grow.
Enter allowing third parties to use the vast majority of the crunch in order to publish fluff without the fear of being sued, like had happened under TSR during the Lorraine Williams era. Yes, this would allow any company to create another game almost exactly like D&D but without the brand and some proper named monsters, spells, characters, etc. Didn't matter, that brand and those known proper names combined with WotC creative would suffice to keep all hounds at bay, and it did.
And thus the OGL became the brainchild of Ryan Dancey.
In 2008, a greedy Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg wanted more money and thus withdrew 4E from the OGL and licensed it under the GSL. This stifled third party fluff creativity and damaged the brand, resulting in the rise of Pathfinder from Paizo. It was always known this could happen, it's just nobody thought Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg would be STUPID ENOUGH to let it happen.
Please also note, both Lisa Stevens and Jim Butler were a part of Ryan Dancey's team that put together the OGL and knew full well what it implied and how it worked. This is of note because Lisa Stevens is the owner of Paizo and Jim Butler is the CEO of Paizo. Yep, the top leadership of Paizo were part of the team that created what we are calling OGL 1.0a and they have the receipts as to why, regardless of any argument Wizards of the Cash/Hasborg care to make, the OGL 1.0a CANNOT be "de-authorized" (aka revoked).
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.
Sounds like an even better reason for WotC to try.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Pathfinder 1 and I'm very glad Paizo exists. But expecting WotC to just roll over and take it when their main competitors are the architects behind the license that fueled their rise to prominence is puerile at best. Especially when that license is capable of being used to drive creations well beyond what Dancey could have credibly foreseen. The OGL can be a force for good, and an entry point to the industry, without blowing the barn door entirely off its hinges.
You mean how Paizo were recently making some of their adventures available for 5th edition, which doesn't at all hurt Wizards of the Coast. They couldn't make that for 5e (without a special agreement with Paizo --how likely would that be now?). But it did mean that one of the biggest competitors (if you can really call them that) were making content for WotC's game. Paizo make better stuff with better quality than wizards do too, at least in my experience. I'm not even a huge fan of Paizo, but they're not really threatening WotC.
One might even add that many believe that Pathfinder kept people in the hobby when players left D&D because of 4th edition and when 5th was released, they eventually returned. Doesn't really seem like even the biggest name is a parasite to me.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Not under the terms OGL 2.0 is claiming to have. Hasbro is highlighting that the new OGL will give Hasbro the power to prevent certain products from being released that Hasbro deems as racist.
While we can agree that blatant racism is wrong, what should the OGL permit for marginal items where a huge range of opinions exist, like the word “Race”?
I don’t like giving Hasbro the legal power to censor products for marginal concepts like this. You can say that it’s highly unlikely that they would ban a product for the word “Race”, but given Hasbro’s recent behavior, I have zero trust or confidence in any promise they give right now.
If a 3PP is that deathly afraid they'll come after them for using the term "race" then they don't need to use Wizards' license or IP. Their fear is neither WotC's problem nor mine.
They both were WotC employees and acted on behalf of WotC with full understanding. There is nothing about that which alters the fact that the OGL 1.0a can never be revoked. They left WotC after the sale of WotC made them millions, moving on to create Paizo and produce OGL and D20 compliant materials. The ONLY reason Pathfinder came about is because of the odious conditions of the GSL, the fact that WotC/Hasbro cancelled a long standing contract for Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and basically put Paizo on the verge of bankruptcy.
What would you expect them to do at that point?
Nope, acting as agents of WotC and now profitting from what was done then is not an argument in court against the fact that you cannot revoke OGL 1.0a.
As to things Ryan Dancey could not conceive of, about the only things he claims wasn't thought of that came about is block chain (which is a red herring as NFTs are artwork,. not text) and people actually spending 4 hours watching voice actors play D&D online.
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.
Honestly, I'm not really willing to trust any company who's definition of racism changes with a twitter storm.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Let's be serious. The only real reason to change the OGL is brand capitalization. Everything else is good-sounding stuff to sweeten the bitter pill.
And yes, no one says that it is not an understandable reason. WoTC is not an NGO. What happens is that no matter how much one understands their motives, the community can stand up and tell them: No. And that's how it has been. The community has told them a big no. Whether it will actually do any good remains to be seen, but at least it should be clear to WoTC and HASBRO that a large part of the D&D community opposes what they intend to do. And that it could backfire on them.
The community has said "no" to what was in the leaked 1.1. That's not the same as saying the community is against changing the OGL at all.
Actually, I am.
The one we had worked very well, and nothing needed to be changed.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Fixed it for you. :-)
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 stand corrected :)
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Well, it's always hard to speak for a community. But let me venture that probably the only change the community will accept from OGL 1.0a is the clarification that it is an irrevocable and perpetual license.
Anything else will hurt WoTC because it will be a betrayal.
No, what we will accept is ORC. WotC doesn't get to write the license. They need to announce that they will join the other publishers in the process of creating ORC and a commitment to use ORC for the new SRD.
Not going to happen.
WotC has been quite clear lately that ORCs are evil. Always have been, always will be.
;)
I know YOU are against changing it. But you aren't the community.
There's no point in even talking about the OGL at this point. That ship has sailed. No one is signing OGL 2.0. One D&D will be unsupported by any significant third party.
The fate of OGL 1.0a will be decided in court. So maybe we still get 5e content. Otherwise, and even so, everyone is moving to the new Open RPG Creative License (ORC). Even companies that use other systems are signing on. The Open Gaming License is essential dead as a tool for the rpg industry.
The large consensus on twitter, reddit, and tumblr is that wotc keeps the OGL 1.0 or signs on to ORC.
PsyrenXY
I've been playing since '80. Now that we'vbe dispensed with the "I've been doing this longer argument, you can sit down and listen. Do you know what Paizo did with Pathfinder? It sounds like you don't so let me explain. They took a version of the game that WotC had decided to abandon and they expanded upon it. WotC misread their customer base (does this sound familiar from anywhere?) and in trying to replace them with video gamers who played WoW, they designed a radically different 4e. Pathfinder didn't out do them. Paizo simply understood the customer base better and kept making what those customers wanted, products that WotC had no intention of making.
All of this comes down to one thing. Customers are just too darned stubborn to give WotC direct access to their bank account. The NERVE of us! We actually want them to create products that we find compelling enough to voluntarily spend our money on. It's crazy! And because Hasbro isn't doing well at understanding their customers and they keep bringing in finance people who have no clue about this hobby, they are failing to make their revenue goals. But they have a solution!
WotC thinking: Those other companies are doing a better job at capturing the interest (and money) of our customers, but what if those companies didn't exist? Then they would HAVE to give us their money, right?
You do understand the difference between gross revenues and profit, correct? OGL 1.1 was intended to cause every single competitor to become wildly unprofitable unless they made their products ludicrously expensive (which would have increased revenues and so increased royalties, recursively). This was an attempt to straight out eliminate all of the companies who are making popular content while WotC releases Spelljammer quality products.
Quar1on
While they are busy spending time making new dice sets, they appear not to be making their product actually work. Go play a clockwork soul sorcerer from Tasha's. That was released HOW long ago? But hey, there are new dice this month and other things that might have a cosmetic impact but take very little time to develop and generate a large per unit profit. It's a really good thing no one wants the site to actually work!