I just want to note that the biggest issue with the new OGL has not at all been promised as a take back. They took back the royalties, they took back the taking of other publishers work back and they took back the ability to revoke the license from you at any time. They said that they couldn't take the work or go after works that were ALREADY published on OGL 1.0a, which everyone knew they couldn't do or weren't trying to do to begin with.
What they HAVEN'T taken back and what they have practically said they aren't taking back is the fact that they are going to deauthorize OGL 1.0a for all future projects not just One DnD. They LIED to us about wanting feedback. This whole thing was scheduled to drop the 6th and LEAKED with an UNOFFICIAL Leak less than a week before it was supposed to drop. Wizards got caught with their pants down trying to screw us all over. As long as they are able to change the deal at any time it isn't ok. And they have proven they can and WILL change it at any time. They are now just buying their time for outrage to die down. As long as the One DnD Open gaming license is in Wizards hands it can't be trusted. As long as they can alter the deal the deal is no good. The license needs to be irrevocable, and unchangeable and any chnages can be ignored at will. Just like the 1.0a originally suggested and was intended.
I know pulse checkers for companies, trolling forums and such for customer feedbacks will filter out "useless" posts pretty quickly. If I am tasked with that job, anyone who says they are done and never returning gets added to my filter OUT list, so I don't have to read through their mindless and useless ranting as I do my research. If you're gone, you're gone and your opinion is of no value to me or my company, You state you are done and thus will not be feeding me cash, so why should I give a rat's ass what you have to say>
Those who are sitting and watching closely and saying the new agreement better be done right or they're leaving are the voices I want to track and log details from. These are the people whose business I may still be able to keep and as such, I will be carefully listening to what THEY want. Filtering out nerdragers is a good first step in getting some useful feedback. As a massive parent company, a lot of our customers understand and appreciate that we will, from time to time, fire a shot.....that hits our foot. Often we can backtrack and find out the person who aimed said shot was too detached from our goal, or simply overbearing and idiotic and then we need to start working on damage control AND a change of direction for said shot. Never fun, but a part of massive business that occurs (and will again in the future)
Too many folks have gotten their skivvies all tied into tight knots and can't get past the fact that Hasbro, from 50 miles away, shoved something down the pipe that was absolute shit. Horribly done, rushed, mishandled in pretty much every way it could be. It's something that now seems to have been handed to a much more in touch and sensible crew, who have no doubt been poring over the details, to try and make sure their collective asses are covered (listed as a main intent of changing the OGL) while not being some corporate ravager of creativity. When dealing with such an open IP as this, it can't be easy and I suspect, to do it RIGHT will require a MUCH longer document than what was leaked. Yes, cumbersome and boring as all hell to read through, but it would need to be so, to cover the proper bases and NOT step on the toes of everyone involved.
Pretending they care what we're saying is cute. But we can clearly see that's not the case. The only thing they're looking at is $$. Your comments don't hold any more weight than mine to WotC. They've tuned us all out. It's not some bizarre coincidence that they release a poorly thought out comment just as droves of people are canceling thier subs.
And it's amazing that there are still people trying to pass this off onto Hasbro. All Hasbro did was say "make more money". WotC were the ones who decided how they were going to do that. They don't have thier own corporate structure as a lark. WotC isn't your friend and they don't deserve your loyalty.
So we should all just quit, then? If they are not listening, all the vitriol on the forum is pointless. If they are listening, all the vitriol on the forum is harmful to our cause. We might be fighting windmills here, both WotC and the Rage, but I think it's too early to quit.
Yes, we should quit WotC. We don't need them to play our game. They don't care about us. We know this because their own employees are running to the media telling us these things. Eventually the game will be sold to someone who wants it and for a few years we'll get a good game. We'll NEVER get that from WotC again. All of the gamers there have been replaced by corporate suits. They don't care about the game beyond how much revenue they can draw from it.
I'm old to have seen this happen once already. Diminishing quality alongside increasing quantity as the corporate mindset takes over. WotC buying D&D gave it new life. We need that to happen again if we want our game to be strong for another 25 years.
TSR was dead broke when WotC bought D&D. WotC has more money than it ever had. There is no one else to purchase it other than even bigger fish like Amazon, and those guys are worse than WotC or even Hasbro.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
In an effort to not be a rabid hyena and be more informed, there was a statement above talking about "throwing the lawyers under the bus" and I did a quick search and did not see what occurred. So what happened to the lawyers? Were the layers fired? If it was an outside firm did they lose WotC legal account? Did others lose their job as a result of the new OGL?
Note: I do not think that some person with their invisible pet mouse created the new doc and went rogue and sent it to content creators. I think that a group of people knew what was in the new OGL and discussed it and reviewed it before it was sent to 3rd parties. If it was a single person and their invisible mouse then that is an issue in and of itself.
General Thoughts: (note things have changed since the original draft doc and I have no idea what is being talked about behind closed doors right now)
I do think companies have the right and the duty to protect their IP, the question is always how. The question (IMHO) with this case is how to protect D&D with emerging new game or game adjacent avenues. I can also see a case for companies asking for royalties for/from specific venders, projects and or expressions of their IP.
I can also see the side of the group that is expressing outrage about the proposed new rules. I think the 20 big players that I saw mentioned in a article as being effected by the royalty requirement as well as the questions by smaller publishers and groups that spend hours creating home brew content are also valid.
I think based on my limited info at this point that both sides have valid points that need to be worked out and explained and then codified in legal text. I read above and in an article that the doc was a draft and was meant to be a starting point for the final doc but to me it seemed an overreach on WotC part for most 3rd PP and those who use D&D in streaming and other areas. Note: I do think in some cases these other areas that use D&D (such as streaming) should potentially pay some royalties and general guidelines should be provided as to when such royalties could be levied and what a company should expect those to be. I say this as now business like to be told they suddenly have to pay a new fee of XX%, where as if it is clearly stated when such a fee could be levied and why companies can plan for such an occurrence.
Rabid Hyena's
I do think there is reason to be concerned about the proposed draft OGL as well as I can see why some are reevaluating their support for D&DB (trying to be very polite here) and I see some of what WoTC is trying to do (I think I am not a mind reader and I would not have expected such a draft doc in the first place). So again I think both sides have some valid points but not necessarily the ones they seem most passionate about.
I hope people on both sides figure out a framework that works for both sides and things move forward to the benefit of everyone. But I may also be overly optimistic here as I have thought that after some of the issues of this last year WotC would focus on doing everything better and not giving customers any reason to do some of the things people and groups are posting and talking about.
In an effort to not be a rabid hyena and be more informed, there was a statement above talking about "throwing the lawyers under the bus" and I did a quick search and did not see what occurred. So what happened to the lawyers? Were the layers fired? If it was an outside firm did they lose WotC legal account? Did others lose their job as a result of the new OGL?
Nothing specifically happened to them--but it is the de facto message of their statement. Specifically, they make a few notes about how the terms were used in drafts for negotiation purposes with third-parties (drafts which would be created mostly by attorneys--and even folks reviewing would be told by the attorneys "well, here's what this means") and a few comments about how they did not really intend some of the implications of those language (a de facto admission that they kind of let the attorneys run with some of the legalese language that players took specific issue with).
Frankly, if I were Hasbro's lawyers, I'd have said "feel free to throw me under the bus more"--I tell my clients to do that all the time, even when it is not my fault, and this is a case where the lawyers probably did contribute the most to the draft.
I doubt anything will happen to them--they did their jobs right, they just did their jobs in the manner of corporate lawyer to corporate lawyer "let's all be adults and understand that draconian terms are not actually indicative of our real position" manner, without expecting the early drafts to be super public and get out of the realm of folks who understand that sometimes a draft is just a draft.
And, yes, it was probably a team of lawyers working on it, and someone at Wizards would have had to review the drafts as well. But lawyers working on a project together are just as prone to echo chambers as everyone else, and even very, very brilliant people's eyes will glaze over when they see legalese and they'll just trust their attorney that everything is A-okay.
This was not "just some draft." And this is not the fault of a bad group of rogue lawyers. This was WotC upper management lead by CEO Cynthia Williams. Lawyers serve their clients purposes.
The OGL 1.1 in its final form was presented along with a contract to about 20 companies, who were given 10 days to sign or else cease publishing all OGL materials.
This is a simple case of a big bully pushing their weight around, (yes WotC, not Hasbro.) But someone "told" and the bully got caught.
They approached companies with OGL 1.1 and claimed they were offering a "Sweetheart deal."
The ‘Term Sheets’
According to an anonymous source who was in the room, in late 2022 Wizards of the Coast gave a presentation to a group of about 20 third-party creators that outlined the new OGL 1.1. These creators were also offered deals that would supersede the publicly available OGL 1.1; Gizmodo has received a copy of that document, called a “Term Sheet,” that would be used to outline specific custom contracts within the OGL.
These “sweetheart” deals would entitle signatories to lower royalty payments—15 percent instead of 25 percent on excess revenue over $750,000, as stated in the OGL 1.1—and a commitment from Wizards of the Coast to market these third-party products on various D&D Beyond channels and platforms, except during “blackout periods” around WotC’s own releases.
It was expected that third parties would sign these Term Sheets. Noah Downs, a lawyer in the table-top RPG space who was consulted on the conditions of one of these contracts, stated that even though the sheets included language suggesting negotiation was possible, he got the impression there wasn’t much room for change.
source : Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand By Linda Codega, Gizmodo 1/14/2023
I’m saying to keep saying “no,” but not be nasty about it. Isn’t that reasonable?
Nasty as I want to be. They tried to secretly ram this change up the behind of every single third party creator and their users. It was under NDA. It had a deadline to sign by the 13th or lose existing licenses. They keep spewing lies and spin. Until they stop the bad faith answers, I will get more and more and MORE ANGRY. And every one of you that tells me to be more civil makes it worse. Stop white knighting them. If you don't want to know what I have to say, stop reading these threads. Or you can stay in your lane.
Choir, I don't think you've seen some of the threads about the Open Game License; There are people who's usernames are "**** Wizards of the Coast" (with the part in asterics spelled out), there are people who are screaming about how Wizards' statement is nothing but a pile of lies and that anyone who doesn't think so is bad, and finally, there are people (or one person for that matter) who has taken the time to private message me over how I am an unbelievably terrible person for advising others not to panic just yet.
In other words, Sposta is right that there is a difference between hateful vitriol and reasonable protest. I never thought I'd say this, but Yurei is doing a wonderful job on articulating how etiquette (or a lack thereof) can make or break your case.
You know what changes when you are polite to an abuser? Nothing. I won't be polite. I won't say "I am so disappointed in you". They can feel my rage and so can anyone that wants to keep telling me to be more reasonable. Their bad faith actions are not cause to say "I know you meant well....", they are cause to say "get over here and accept your punishment."
But if you've already written off D&D, or just want OGL 1.0a forever and nothing else - then that's not trying to meet WotC partway and they have zero reason to try to negotiate with you. You'd no longer be part of their target audience/customer (because you said so yourself) - they should just press forward with whatever OGL they want and call it a day then.
...
First, meeting in the middle isn't desirable. If my viewpoint is that everyone deserves respect and another person's viewpoint is that we should disembowel them, meeting in the middle with some mild stabbing still isn't reasonable. Their responses have been incredibly suspect. They have lied in such obvious ways that it boggles the mind. And the original intent was to secretly do this. Under NDA. With a 7 day deadline or lose all former licensing.
Second, their reason to meet our demands is simple. They would like to make more money. There is still time for them to fix it. But OGL: 1.0 is not a non-starter. Neither is demanding changes in leadership. They've shown that they are bad actors with no understanding of the operations that they are trying to run. They have shows that they will lose money. Their bosses need to understand that it won't change. They need to see that the only way to stop the hemorrhaging is to stop saving face and stop trying to find a way to weasel a path forward with OGL 1.1.
So the answer is simple. I'm going to be loud. I am going to call BS when I see it. And I'm not going away.
Do I want them to fix this? Yes.
Can they change the OGL. Yes.
Can they have my money if those changes are underhanded, made under cover of darkness, shrouded in lies and intimidation, or just straight up wrong? NO
Will I give them money under their current leadership? NO
Do I want them to burn? NO, but if they won't change, I will light the match myself.
Cool. It still doesn't exist yet, and it's still being paid for by Paizo. We don't yet know if their promise of leaving the license in the hands of a neutral third party will come to fruition or if they'll come out in a year and say "we're really sorry, we tried to live up to our promise, but we haven't managed to find a suitable holder for this license. Until we do, Paizo will reluctantly take up the mantle of steward and safeguard True Open Gaming from the depredations of our chief competition we're really trying our best to poison you against whilst maximally exploiting their ****up corporate bigwigs who don't understand the true soul of gaming."
....
And if Paizo goes back on their word, their forums will look like these because they earned it. I love that you make my argument for me. It's so polite of you.
Even if that is true, and it might be, it will be years before ORC is functional, if it even takes off. But honestly, I don't much trust Paizo. They are many times bigger than Kobold Press and Kobold is many times bigger than any of the other companies starting ORC. Will Paizo really not use their obvious advantage?
This. Also, Paizo had 3 video games that sold well in the past 8 years or so, benefitting from their rise due entirely to the original 1.0a OGL. I would bet my cute dog that WotC was primarily focusing on stopping big companies/publishers from doing what Paizo has done. In other words, I think Paizo abused the OGL "Rules as Written" instead of the "Rules as Intended" - which was to foster small-time developers/designers/homebrewers.
I find it absurd to think that WotC would come breaking my door down to take away my small-potatoes operations rather than the $1m+ beneficiaries of the OGL. Let's be real...
Actually, it would be very easy to break down your door. Hasbro has a lot of lawyers. That's how big corporations destroy competition from small guys. They bleed away financial resources with litigation expenses so the little guys are bankrupted. You did notice that this all started with lies, correct? If they simply wanted to reign in Paizo, did they need to make this super NDA secret? If they wanted feedback, would they have given a seven day deadline with the threat of removing all licensing after that date? The evidence of their ill intent is all over the place if you simply open your eyes. Why would they stop short of breaking your door down if they thought it would make them more than it cost them?
Many people no longer wish for Wizards to correct this mistake. They'd rather watch the whole game burn up and die so they can dance on the ashes and crow about how they were too smart to be fooled by Wizards' lame dumb attempt to fix things.
The game won't ever, but the company might. Would that be so bad? I'm not sure.
I dunno. I'm deeply cynical about anything economic. I'm a doomer and I'm not energized to learn useful techniques. My contributions to this topic are going to get steadily less and less valuable as time goes on, so I'm gonna bow out.
Theoretical for you, because this is a point I've had to raise in other communities as well.
Say there's an IP that just hit the market. It's a storied IP, one that's well known and has a lot of potential for making money. It's on the market in the first place because the IP's consumer base just got done cannibalizing the last company to hold the IP and causing so much damage and outrage that the company who previously held the IP folded and died.
Tell me: do you, as a Corporate Person, pick up this IP which is only available because its previous owner was eaten alive by 'fans' and has been irreversibly poisoned by the event? Or do you treat it as radioactive and let it die out altogether? Or do you let it lay fallow for twenty or thirty years before somebody a few decades from now picks up the old dead license and makes a cynical-minded cash grab on nostalgia alone long after the brouhaha has contributed to the decline of tabletop after its unexpected surge in the teens and twenties?
I dunno what the right answer is. But it's an interesting question to consider.
Are you really sure you understand your own question? Do they pick up the IP? Yes. Do they abandon outdated mechanics maintained to keep some level of backward compatibility in the minds of players from Basic and 1e and then use the brand name without the original content? It's marketing 101.. A recognizable brand is simply easier to get market attention with. The hobby shop owner and the book buyer know that name. They don't know what Hero Adventure Time is. So they will buy D and D. So another company would snatch it up.
I've been playing D and D for a long time. D and D isn't and hasn't been the best system for decades. But D and D is the universal language. Every RPG gamer knows the terminology and has a pretty good idea of how most of the rules work. New players have seen things like Critical Role. You can teach a new player what they need to know in the 5 minutes before session 1, if needed (maybe 15 minutes if you need to explain spell mechanics and help them choose). Simply put, D and D isn't good, but it's easy. And it's easy because of OGL 1.0. Everyone knew the mechanics because they saw them everywhere. All of those third party systems, supplements, etc. All of them used the same terms.
So the company going down wouldn't kill the game but it might damage its' market. My hope is that Hasbro will realize that jettisoning the WotC management and backtracking is the best approach to protect their investment.
I don't disagree. What I do disagree about is telling other people to do it in the hopes that it will somehow harm WotC. With tens of millions of accounts on D&DBbeyond and likely thousands if not more who don't have a D&Dbeyond, the 65,000 who signed the petition makes up only half a percent of the number of D&Dbeyond accounts, much less all the other players.
I would prefer a source to prove that there are "tens of millions" of accounts on DNDB, because that seems like an extraordinarily high number. But even if there were, that number is not the important one. What matters to WOTC is the number of PAYING accounts. And right now, what matters most of all is the number of paying accounts that are cancelling their subscriptions.
I don't think anyone not in WOTC corporate knows what that threshold would have to be for the cancellations to start stinging. However, if I was to bet on it, I'd bet that by now there *has* been an impact. I'd also bet that once the next quarterly projection comes out, it probably won't grant a favorable look. The only reason the stockholders aren't upset yet is because the effect of all this has not yet been reported to them. Watch what happens when that day comes.
And, of course, this is now the second public relations disaster that WOTC has committed in the last few months. This continued, blundering damage to brand recognition is unlikely to go unnoticed by the stockholders either, not forever.
Please. Calm down. Breathe. Have some water. And remember that if you continue to beat the dog over and over again after it's tried and tried to do what you want, eventually the dog will stop caring and bite you.
As I understand it, you're suggesting that we be nice to the mouth that is already biting our hand.
I don't disagree. What I do disagree about is telling other people to do it in the hopes that it will somehow harm WotC. With tens of millions of accounts on D&DBbeyond and likely thousands if not more who don't have a D&Dbeyond, the 65,000 who signed the petition makes up only half a percent of the number of D&Dbeyond accounts, much less all the other players.
I would prefer a source to prove that there are "tens of millions" of accounts on DNDB, because that seems like an extraordinarily high number. But even if there were, that number is not the important one. What matters to WOTC is the number of PAYING accounts. And right now, what matters most of all is the number of paying accounts that are cancelling their subscriptions.
I don't think anyone not in WOTC corporate knows what that threshold would have to be for the cancellations to start stinging. However, if I was to bet on it, I'd bet that by now there *has* been an impact. I'd also bet that once the next quarterly projection comes out, it probably won't grant a favorable look. The only reason the stockholders aren't upset yet is because the effect of all this has not yet been reported to them. Watch what happens when that day comes.
And, of course, this is now the second public relations disaster that WOTC has committed in the last few months. This continued, blundering damage to brand recognition is unlikely to go unnoticed by the stockholders either, not forever.
10 million in April. The number had increased before last week's disaster.
Thank you, that is helpful info (although the OCD in me feels compelled to point out that "nearly 10 million" is not the same as "tens of millions," but yeah it's a high number).
However that still doesn't indicate how many of these are paying accounts.
Please. Calm down. Breathe. Have some water. And remember that if you continue to beat the dog over and over again after it's tried and tried to do what you want, eventually the dog will stop caring and bite you.
As I understand it, you're suggesting that we be nice to the mouth that is already biting our hand.
In a word: No.
That is not what is being suggested. Pressure needs to be maintained, subscriptions can't be restarted. But deleting accounts? Saying you will never ever come back? Those things are extremely counter productive if enough people do them. I have seen approximately 10 people on this forum that are advocating restraint. The number of account deleters is in the tens of thousands. The millions of others possibly don't know anything is going on. So WotC can come to the conclusion that it is pointless giving us a better OGL 2.0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Please. Calm down. Breathe. Have some water. And remember that if you continue to beat the dog over and over again after it's tried and tried to do what you want, eventually the dog will stop caring and bite you.
As I understand it, you're suggesting that we be nice to the mouth that is already biting our hand.
In a word: No.
That is not what is being suggested. Pressure needs to be maintained, subscriptions can't be restarted. But deleting accounts? Saying you will never ever come back? Those things are extremely counter productive if enough people do them. I have seen approximately 10 people on this forum that are advocating restraint. The number of account deleters is in the tens of thousands. The millions of others possibly don't know anything is going on. So WotC can come to the conclusion that it is pointless giving us a better OGL 2.0.
Well, we agree that pressure must be maintained at least. However, the suggestion "the loss of too many customers will cause WOTC to stop caring" is not correct. They are a publicly traded corporation beholden to stockholders and driven by profit. Hitting them in the bank and giving them raw data to chew on are the *only* things that companies like this care about. Frankly, I salute those who are going so far as to completely delete their accounts. You can be damn sure that's a metric being looked at. Furthermore, do you honestly believe that WOTC *wants* its customers to run directly into the arms of its competitors? Of course they don't, good lord.
The point is, there *will* come a point when WOTC/Hasbro will jump through hoops to keep the remaining customers happy. Clearly, as shown in the inadequate explanation letter they posted the other day, we aren't there yet. Until then, let the beatings continue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just want to note that the biggest issue with the new OGL has not at all been promised as a take back. They took back the royalties, they took back the taking of other publishers work back and they took back the ability to revoke the license from you at any time. They said that they couldn't take the work or go after works that were ALREADY published on OGL 1.0a, which everyone knew they couldn't do or weren't trying to do to begin with.
What they HAVEN'T taken back and what they have practically said they aren't taking back is the fact that they are going to deauthorize OGL 1.0a for all future projects not just One DnD. They LIED to us about wanting feedback. This whole thing was scheduled to drop the 6th and LEAKED with an UNOFFICIAL Leak less than a week before it was supposed to drop. Wizards got caught with their pants down trying to screw us all over. As long as they are able to change the deal at any time it isn't ok. And they have proven they can and WILL change it at any time. They are now just buying their time for outrage to die down. As long as the One DnD Open gaming license is in Wizards hands it can't be trusted. As long as they can alter the deal the deal is no good. The license needs to be irrevocable, and unchangeable and any chnages can be ignored at will. Just like the 1.0a originally suggested and was intended.
Yes, we should quit WotC. We don't need them to play our game. They don't care about us. We know this because their own employees are running to the media telling us these things. Eventually the game will be sold to someone who wants it and for a few years we'll get a good game. We'll NEVER get that from WotC again. All of the gamers there have been replaced by corporate suits. They don't care about the game beyond how much revenue they can draw from it.
I'm old to have seen this happen once already. Diminishing quality alongside increasing quantity as the corporate mindset takes over. WotC buying D&D gave it new life. We need that to happen again if we want our game to be strong for another 25 years.
TSR was dead broke when WotC bought D&D. WotC has more money than it ever had. There is no one else to purchase it other than even bigger fish like Amazon, and those guys are worse than WotC or even Hasbro.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
In an effort to not be a rabid hyena and be more informed, there was a statement above talking about "throwing the lawyers under the bus" and I did a quick search and did not see what occurred. So what happened to the lawyers? Were the layers fired? If it was an outside firm did they lose WotC legal account? Did others lose their job as a result of the new OGL?
Note: I do not think that some person with their invisible pet mouse created the new doc and went rogue and sent it to content creators. I think that a group of people knew what was in the new OGL and discussed it and reviewed it before it was sent to 3rd parties. If it was a single person and their invisible mouse then that is an issue in and of itself.
General Thoughts: (note things have changed since the original draft doc and I have no idea what is being talked about behind closed doors right now)
I do think companies have the right and the duty to protect their IP, the question is always how. The question (IMHO) with this case is how to protect D&D with emerging new game or game adjacent avenues. I can also see a case for companies asking for royalties for/from specific venders, projects and or expressions of their IP.
I can also see the side of the group that is expressing outrage about the proposed new rules. I think the 20 big players that I saw mentioned in a article as being effected by the royalty requirement as well as the questions by smaller publishers and groups that spend hours creating home brew content are also valid.
I think based on my limited info at this point that both sides have valid points that need to be worked out and explained and then codified in legal text. I read above and in an article that the doc was a draft and was meant to be a starting point for the final doc but to me it seemed an overreach on WotC part for most 3rd PP and those who use D&D in streaming and other areas. Note: I do think in some cases these other areas that use D&D (such as streaming) should potentially pay some royalties and general guidelines should be provided as to when such royalties could be levied and what a company should expect those to be. I say this as now business like to be told they suddenly have to pay a new fee of XX%, where as if it is clearly stated when such a fee could be levied and why companies can plan for such an occurrence.
Rabid Hyena's
I do think there is reason to be concerned about the proposed draft OGL as well as I can see why some are reevaluating their support for D&DB (trying to be very polite here) and I see some of what WoTC is trying to do (I think I am not a mind reader and I would not have expected such a draft doc in the first place). So again I think both sides have some valid points but not necessarily the ones they seem most passionate about.
I hope people on both sides figure out a framework that works for both sides and things move forward to the benefit of everyone. But I may also be overly optimistic here as I have thought that after some of the issues of this last year WotC would focus on doing everything better and not giving customers any reason to do some of the things people and groups are posting and talking about.
Nothing specifically happened to them--but it is the de facto message of their statement. Specifically, they make a few notes about how the terms were used in drafts for negotiation purposes with third-parties (drafts which would be created mostly by attorneys--and even folks reviewing would be told by the attorneys "well, here's what this means") and a few comments about how they did not really intend some of the implications of those language (a de facto admission that they kind of let the attorneys run with some of the legalese language that players took specific issue with).
Frankly, if I were Hasbro's lawyers, I'd have said "feel free to throw me under the bus more"--I tell my clients to do that all the time, even when it is not my fault, and this is a case where the lawyers probably did contribute the most to the draft.
I doubt anything will happen to them--they did their jobs right, they just did their jobs in the manner of corporate lawyer to corporate lawyer "let's all be adults and understand that draconian terms are not actually indicative of our real position" manner, without expecting the early drafts to be super public and get out of the realm of folks who understand that sometimes a draft is just a draft.
And, yes, it was probably a team of lawyers working on it, and someone at Wizards would have had to review the drafts as well. But lawyers working on a project together are just as prone to echo chambers as everyone else, and even very, very brilliant people's eyes will glaze over when they see legalese and they'll just trust their attorney that everything is A-okay.
This was not "just some draft." And this is not the fault of a bad group of rogue lawyers.
This was WotC upper management lead by CEO Cynthia Williams. Lawyers serve their clients purposes.
The OGL 1.1 in its final form was presented along with a contract to about 20 companies, who were given 10 days to sign or else cease publishing all OGL materials.
This is a simple case of a big bully pushing their weight around, (yes WotC, not Hasbro.)
But someone "told" and the bully got caught.
They approached companies with OGL 1.1 and claimed they were offering a "Sweetheart deal."
source : Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand By Linda Codega, Gizmodo 1/14/2023
Thanks for the info about the lawyers and what went on.
No, we will not shut up about this.
Nasty as I want to be. They tried to secretly ram this change up the behind of every single third party creator and their users. It was under NDA. It had a deadline to sign by the 13th or lose existing licenses. They keep spewing lies and spin. Until they stop the bad faith answers, I will get more and more and MORE ANGRY. And every one of you that tells me to be more civil makes it worse. Stop white knighting them. If you don't want to know what I have to say, stop reading these threads. Or you can stay in your lane.
You know what changes when you are polite to an abuser? Nothing. I won't be polite. I won't say "I am so disappointed in you". They can feel my rage and so can anyone that wants to keep telling me to be more reasonable. Their bad faith actions are not cause to say "I know you meant well....", they are cause to say "get over here and accept your punishment."
First, meeting in the middle isn't desirable. If my viewpoint is that everyone deserves respect and another person's viewpoint is that we should disembowel them, meeting in the middle with some mild stabbing still isn't reasonable. Their responses have been incredibly suspect. They have lied in such obvious ways that it boggles the mind. And the original intent was to secretly do this. Under NDA. With a 7 day deadline or lose all former licensing.
Second, their reason to meet our demands is simple. They would like to make more money. There is still time for them to fix it. But OGL: 1.0 is not a non-starter. Neither is demanding changes in leadership. They've shown that they are bad actors with no understanding of the operations that they are trying to run. They have shows that they will lose money. Their bosses need to understand that it won't change. They need to see that the only way to stop the hemorrhaging is to stop saving face and stop trying to find a way to weasel a path forward with OGL 1.1.
So the answer is simple. I'm going to be loud. I am going to call BS when I see it. And I'm not going away.
Do I want them to fix this?
Yes.
Can they change the OGL.
Yes.
Can they have my money if those changes are underhanded, made under cover of darkness, shrouded in lies and intimidation, or just straight up wrong?
NO
Will I give them money under their current leadership?
NO
Do I want them to burn?
NO, but if they won't change, I will light the match myself.
And if Paizo goes back on their word, their forums will look like these because they earned it. I love that you make my argument for me. It's so polite of you.
Actually, it would be very easy to break down your door. Hasbro has a lot of lawyers. That's how big corporations destroy competition from small guys. They bleed away financial resources with litigation expenses so the little guys are bankrupted. You did notice that this all started with lies, correct? If they simply wanted to reign in Paizo, did they need to make this super NDA secret? If they wanted feedback, would they have given a seven day deadline with the threat of removing all licensing after that date? The evidence of their ill intent is all over the place if you simply open your eyes. Why would they stop short of breaking your door down if they thought it would make them more than it cost them?
Are you really sure you understand your own question? Do they pick up the IP? Yes. Do they abandon outdated mechanics maintained to keep some level of backward compatibility in the minds of players from Basic and 1e and then use the brand name without the original content? It's marketing 101.. A recognizable brand is simply easier to get market attention with. The hobby shop owner and the book buyer know that name. They don't know what Hero Adventure Time is. So they will buy D and D. So another company would snatch it up.
I've been playing D and D for a long time. D and D isn't and hasn't been the best system for decades. But D and D is the universal language. Every RPG gamer knows the terminology and has a pretty good idea of how most of the rules work. New players have seen things like Critical Role. You can teach a new player what they need to know in the 5 minutes before session 1, if needed (maybe 15 minutes if you need to explain spell mechanics and help them choose). Simply put, D and D isn't good, but it's easy. And it's easy because of OGL 1.0. Everyone knew the mechanics because they saw them everywhere. All of those third party systems, supplements, etc. All of them used the same terms.
So the company going down wouldn't kill the game but it might damage its' market. My hope is that Hasbro will realize that jettisoning the WotC management and backtracking is the best approach to protect their investment.
I would prefer a source to prove that there are "tens of millions" of accounts on DNDB, because that seems like an extraordinarily high number. But even if there were, that number is not the important one. What matters to WOTC is the number of PAYING accounts. And right now, what matters most of all is the number of paying accounts that are cancelling their subscriptions.
I don't think anyone not in WOTC corporate knows what that threshold would have to be for the cancellations to start stinging. However, if I was to bet on it, I'd bet that by now there *has* been an impact. I'd also bet that once the next quarterly projection comes out, it probably won't grant a favorable look. The only reason the stockholders aren't upset yet is because the effect of all this has not yet been reported to them. Watch what happens when that day comes.
And, of course, this is now the second public relations disaster that WOTC has committed in the last few months. This continued, blundering damage to brand recognition is unlikely to go unnoticed by the stockholders either, not forever.
As I understand it, you're suggesting that we be nice to the mouth that is already biting our hand.
In a word: No.
10 million in April. The number had increased before last week's disaster.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/hasbro-buys-dd-beyond-for-146-3m-in-gaming-expansion-1235129523/
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Thank you, that is helpful info (although the OCD in me feels compelled to point out that "nearly 10 million" is not the same as "tens of millions," but yeah it's a high number).
However that still doesn't indicate how many of these are paying accounts.
That is not what is being suggested. Pressure needs to be maintained, subscriptions can't be restarted. But deleting accounts? Saying you will never ever come back? Those things are extremely counter productive if enough people do them. I have seen approximately 10 people on this forum that are advocating restraint. The number of account deleters is in the tens of thousands. The millions of others possibly don't know anything is going on. So WotC can come to the conclusion that it is pointless giving us a better OGL 2.0.
DM for life by choice, biggest fan of D&D specifically.
Well, we agree that pressure must be maintained at least. However, the suggestion "the loss of too many customers will cause WOTC to stop caring" is not correct. They are a publicly traded corporation beholden to stockholders and driven by profit. Hitting them in the bank and giving them raw data to chew on are the *only* things that companies like this care about. Frankly, I salute those who are going so far as to completely delete their accounts. You can be damn sure that's a metric being looked at. Furthermore, do you honestly believe that WOTC *wants* its customers to run directly into the arms of its competitors? Of course they don't, good lord.
The point is, there *will* come a point when WOTC/Hasbro will jump through hoops to keep the remaining customers happy. Clearly, as shown in the inadequate explanation letter they posted the other day, we aren't there yet. Until then, let the beatings continue.