Does "who's to blame" mean anything? WOTC is an appendage of Hasbro as a corporate entity, a funny hat they put on to sell you MtG and D&D products.
I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to treat them as distinct entities.
The one can't function without the approval of the other. The parent company is as responsible as the one doing the offending.
Corporate greed drives the free market. Its up to us to determine how much they can get away with. The more disposable income you have, the less any of this matters. Those of us who rely on our talents to get by, are always at the mercy of "THE MAN".
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
No. Updating the OGL is described in the OGL. It cannot be revoked.
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
They can release new versions, but you can continue to use older versions that were released as authorized. 1.0 and 1.0a.
A license has to say "irrevocable" to be irrevocable.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
Then they should have made sure the license said that, no?
I'm sympathetic to the framer's intent, but clear wording back then could have saved a lot of headaches now.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
When WotC created the license things like NFT's didn't exist. This will be thier argument in court. The license needs updating because it allows for things that couldn't have been anticipated when it was created.
The reality of the situation is that the legality will be determined in court. Both sides have valid arguments they can make. If WotC didn't have a chance, then Hasbro's army of lawyers wouldn't have written it the way that they did...
Then they should have made sure the license said that, no?
I'm sympathetic to the framer's intent, but clear wording back then could have saved a lot of headaches now.
That wasn't the thinking back then.
It sucks that they have decided to change it, and it's pretty predatory that they have. Makes it ironic that Hasbro have just received an award for being a "Just corporation" if you ask me.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
When WotC created the license things like NFT's didn't exist. This will be thier argument in court. The license needs updating because it allows for things that couldn't have been anticipated when it was created.
The reality of the situation is that the legality will be determined in court. Both sides have valid arguments they can make. If WotC didn't have a chance, then Hasbro's army of lawyers wouldn't have written it the way that they did...
I'm trying really hard here, but I don't see your point here. NFTs are stupid, absolutely, but no one gives a damn when Hasbro did them, so why should we care if any third party publisher does? Has anyone seen a 3pp actually doing one and attach it to the product that they've sold using the OGL? Or is this more of WotC's grasping at straws looking for a reason to say "it's not fair, I want that money"?
There were VTTs around in the early 2000s, Fantasy Grounds was first released in 2004 and I think MapTool was around even before that, there were a number of good options back then too. So no one can convince me that WotC didn't see VTTs coming because Code Monkey Publishing had a license agreement with them to sell a few WotC modules back in 2005 for Fantasy Grounds, they also had their interactive adventures.
They did not allow software or games to be sold if it used the d20 license, but they didn't care about the OGL being used for software. I hope any judge ruling on this takes the 23 years of them taking this stance into account before ruling on this.
I literally just provided a list of (highly well-recieved) original adventures WotC has published in recent years
For the most part they were reboots.
Earlier you said "remakes of older adventures" and now it's about "reboots"? That's the very definition of moving the goalpost.
Still not original content
1: Yes, it is original content. It's like if I said the LotR Amazon show isn't actually new because it's set in Middle-Earth. Or that every Zelda game released since Zelda 1 isn't a new game because it's still Zelda.
2: You're still moving the goalpost, and haven't actually provided anything meaningful to the conversation yet.
"Perpetual" is not "irrevocable." They are two very different things in licensing.
In D&D terms, the former is akin to "permanent until dispelled" while the latter is "instantaneous."
When WotC created the license they were of the opinion it was forever. Part of the FAQ they released said that. It was always their intention that the OGL would protect the game from bad faith from whoever owned it.
When WotC created the license things like NFT's didn't exist. This will be thier argument in court. The license needs updating because it allows for things that couldn't have been anticipated when it was created.
The reality of the situation is that the legality will be determined in court. Both sides have valid arguments they can make. If WotC didn't have a chance, then Hasbro's army of lawyers wouldn't have written it the way that they did...
I'm trying really hard here, but I don't see your point here. NFTs are stupid, absolutely, but no one gives a damn when Hasbro did them, so why should we care if any third party publisher does? Has anyone seen a 3pp actually doing one and attach it to the product that they've sold using the OGL? Or is this more of WotC's grasping at straws looking for a reason to say "it's not fair, I want that money"?
There were VTTs around in the early 2000s, Fantasy Grounds was first released in 2004 and I think MapTool was around even before that, there were a number of good options back then too. So no one can convince me that WotC didn't see VTTs coming because Code Monkey Publishing had a license agreement with them to sell a few WotC modules back in 2005 for Fantasy Grounds, they also had their interactive adventures.
They did not allow software or games to be sold if it used the d20 license, but they didn't care about the OGL being used for software. I hope any judge ruling on this takes the 23 years of them taking this stance into account before ruling on this.
They're not banning people from making VTTs. Those just won't all be covered by a one-size-fits-all license. Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds already have custom licenses with them, and that's the desired model going forward.
"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?
What channel will they release it on? DnDBeyond? I'd rather hear their words directly, unfiltered through someone else.
Don't know. I haven't found the original statement yet. I would assume it will be on the front page of DDB.
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?
YouTuber DND_Shorts is reporting via Twitter that he has received a message from inside WotC. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED, so take it as you will. If true, however, it's pretty dour.
"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?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Earlier you said "remakes of older adventures" and now it's about "reboots"? That's the very definition of moving the goalpost.
[REDACTED]
Still not original content
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
Does "who's to blame" mean anything? WOTC is an appendage of Hasbro as a corporate entity, a funny hat they put on to sell you MtG and D&D products.
I'm not sure how much value there is in trying to treat them as distinct entities.
The one can't function without the approval of the other. The parent company is as responsible as the one doing the offending.
Corporate greed drives the free market. Its up to us to determine how much they can get away with. The more disposable income you have, the less any of this matters. Those of us who rely on our talents to get by, are always at the mercy of "THE MAN".
A license has to say "irrevocable" to be irrevocable.
Then they should have made sure the license said that, no?
I'm sympathetic to the framer's intent, but clear wording back then could have saved a lot of headaches now.
When WotC created the license things like NFT's didn't exist. This will be thier argument in court. The license needs updating because it allows for things that couldn't have been anticipated when it was created.
The reality of the situation is that the legality will be determined in court. Both sides have valid arguments they can make. If WotC didn't have a chance, then Hasbro's army of lawyers wouldn't have written it the way that they did...
That wasn't the thinking back then.
It sucks that they have decided to change it, and it's pretty predatory that they have. Makes it ironic that Hasbro have just received an award for being a "Just corporation" if you ask me.
I'm trying really hard here, but I don't see your point here. NFTs are stupid, absolutely, but no one gives a damn when Hasbro did them, so why should we care if any third party publisher does? Has anyone seen a 3pp actually doing one and attach it to the product that they've sold using the OGL? Or is this more of WotC's grasping at straws looking for a reason to say "it's not fair, I want that money"?
There were VTTs around in the early 2000s, Fantasy Grounds was first released in 2004 and I think MapTool was around even before that, there were a number of good options back then too. So no one can convince me that WotC didn't see VTTs coming because Code Monkey Publishing had a license agreement with them to sell a few WotC modules back in 2005 for Fantasy Grounds, they also had their interactive adventures.
They did not allow software or games to be sold if it used the d20 license, but they didn't care about the OGL being used for software. I hope any judge ruling on this takes the 23 years of them taking this stance into account before ruling on this.
Fantasy Grounds Ultimate Licence Holder
1: Yes, it is original content. It's like if I said the LotR Amazon show isn't actually new because it's set in Middle-Earth. Or that every Zelda game released since Zelda 1 isn't a new game because it's still Zelda.
2: You're still moving the goalpost, and haven't actually provided anything meaningful to the conversation yet.
[REDACTED]
It's almost like licenses should be able to change with the times or something.
They're not banning people from making VTTs. Those just won't all be covered by a one-size-fits-all license. Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds already have custom licenses with them, and that's the desired model going forward.
Looks like WotC is releasing a video at 3pm EST today to address CGL 1.1. Roll for Combat YouTube channel is going to cover it.
https://twitter.com/RollForCombat/status/1613566977490001928
"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?
What channel will they release it on? DnDBeyond? I'd rather hear their words directly, unfiltered through someone else.
Don't know. I haven't found the original statement yet. I would assume it will be on the front page of DDB.
"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?
YouTuber DND_Shorts is reporting via Twitter that he has received a message from inside WotC. THIS HAS NOT BEEN CORROBORATED, so take it as you will. If true, however, it's pretty dour.
https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1613576298114449409?cxt=HHwWgoDQsYLGyeQsAAAA
"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?