The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Greg Benage]

After all, ultimately, WotC is operating under the constraint that 3PPs, now and forevermore, can use the universe of Open Game Content that already exists under the OGL 1.0a. 3PPs (including new start-ups) will have to prefer working under the OGL 1.1 to get them to take it up, which means there's a natural limit to how bad the deal can be. If WotC wants people to report revenue and potentially pay royalties, they are going to have to offer something to make that worthwhile.

I think Wizards has to be sure they bring their customers with them. This can't be a repeat of the move from 3.5/OGL to 4/GSL. This is subjective, but I haven't seen anything yet in the playtest that's likely to significantly fracture the fanbase and create an appealingly viable market for legacy content. Indeed, I think they have a conscious aversion to that kind of change. And the model promises this kind of incremental change forever. It's a "boil the frog" strategy that's much less likely to create another Paizo.

If they bring their customers with them, then safe-harbor access to the future D&D market is a pretty tasty carrot. Whether it's tasty enough probably depends on the royalty details and the product strategies of the individual publishers. From Wizards' perspective, though, as long as my customers come with me, I really don't think I care terribly much about whether most large 3PPs do.

That said, if I'm running this for Wizards, I probably care about some of them. If I do, I'm going to offer some more carrots. But I'll offer them individually, in dialog with those publishers. I'll discuss what kind of royalty structure makes sense. I won't be looking to write carrots into the licensing agreement. I believe @Morrus has mentioned that Wizards is already reaching out--whether or not carrots are in hand, I have no idea.

 

[Yora]

So, has anyone seen the license yet?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So, has anyone seen the license yet?

no we think in the next few weeks'

 

[dave2008]

... but I really, really like the OGL and what it has done for the gaming community and industry, and my own freelance work, for the past 20 odd years and trying to kill it is, for me, a slap in the face to D&D fans.

I don't think they are trying to kill it. They want 3PP to thrive so they can make money from it. Achieving both is a very hard needle to thread. However, I completely understand it and don't blame WotC for trying. It was what any reasonable business should do IMO. Do I want these revised terms - no, but I will likely be able to live with them. I just hope they are willing to listen to the community before they release the final draft.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think they are trying to kill it. They want 3PP to thrive so they can make money from it. Achieving both is a very hard needle to thread. However, I completely understand it and don't blame WotC for trying. It was what any reasonable business should do IMO. Do I want these revised terms - no, but I will likely be able to live with them. I just hope they are willing to listen to the community before they release the final draft.

also think about how spoiled we are with the OGL... if TSR put out the GSL in 97 (much more restrictive then this) and had a fee if someone made 250,000 or more... we would have called it amazing and the best thing ever.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think they are trying to kill it. They want 3PP to thrive so they can make money from it. Achieving both is a very hard needle to thread. However, I completely understand it and don't blame WotC for trying. It was what any reasonable business should do IMO. Do I want these revised terms - no, but I will likely be able to live with them. I just hope they are willing to listen to the community before they release the final draft.

Here's the thing: WotC isn't going to produce a Dungeons of Drakkenheim (just as an example). Try to go the GSL-like route reduces the probability anyone else will. The existence of such products is a net good for D&D. This has been proven out over decades. What does WotC actually stand to gain? A few thousand dollars a year? A few hundred thousand? Is that worth the hit to community trust?

 

[dave2008]

Here's the thing: WotC isn't going to produce a Dungeons of Drakkenheim (just as an example). Try to go the GSL-like route reduces the probability anyone else will. The existence of such products is a net good for D&D. This has been proven out over decades. What does WotC actually stand to gain? A few thousand dollars a year? A few hundred thousand? Is that worth the hit to community trust?

We don't know yet. The devil is in the details and we don't have those yet.

 

[Reynard]

also think about how spoiled we are with the OGL... if TSR put out the GSL in 97 (much more restrictive then this) and had a fee if someone made 250,000 or more... we would have called it amazing and the best thing ever.

Sure, if you are only thinking like a consumer. You can't just pretend the OGL didn't happen and say "this ain't so bad."

 

[Reynard]

We don't know yet. The devil is in the details and we don't have those yet.

Yes, it's technically possible they will reverse course. But they came out with pretty specific information for that to be in the cards.

 

[mamba]

That said, if I'm running this for Wizards, I probably care about some of them. If I do, I'm going to offer some more carrots. But I'll offer them individually, in dialog with those publishers.

individual carrots do not work very well in the context of a universal license like the OGL. At that point you are basically abandoning the concept, or at least willing to sweeten the deal beyond that for the ‘big players’

My take was more that they get some input into what the final terms actually are, so they switch over, rather than getting custom licenses