We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Ondath]

Holy naughty word: 20-25% royalty on Qualifying Revenue.

Well...that's, like, double what I considered an unrealistic worst-case scenario. That's a "don't try to make real money on this" kind of number.

Oh yeah. There's a Turkish company currently making 5E content that got two succesful kickstarters funded (Dream Realm Storytellers). Their revenue from the two kickstarters got around 475k in dollars. If they were to publish under OGL v1.1 and make two more kickstarters to the same amount, they'd need to pay Wizards royalties to the tune of 40000 dollars, which makes around 748000 Turkish liras (which is 88 times the Turkish minimum wage).

Mind you, this is a very small indie Turkish company that just happened to find a niche that gave them reach in the international market. I hardly doubt their current financials would allow them to afford paying the kind of royalties WotC is asking.

They're effectively killing any profitable third-party content creation unless you're Critical Role.

 

[MockingBird]

Is no one in the WotC offices saying "I don't think this is a good idea boss"?

 

[Remathilis]

Microsoft was successfully sued for monopolistic practices because they included Internet Explorer with Windows 95.

And the version of Edge I got preinstalled with Windows 11 points to how effective that lawsuit was.

 

[Alzrius]

Stop trying to make me like this.

No one should like a clause that could conceivably get the Curvy Cryptid Monster Manual pulled.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

EDIT for quote:

My source indicated that this was originally supposed to go live Jan 4, and people would have until Jan 13 to agree. Jan 13 is cited in the document I received. If true, WotC was planning to give only 7 business days for people to adjust and respond, and, presumably, agree.

That's uh, not great.

Also we learn royalties are 25% on what you make over 750k. So it's not what anyone expected exactly. It's a flat quarter of revenue (not profit), but only on the part that is above 750k.

Also absolutely randomly, if you use Kickstarter, WotC will charge you only 20% royalties (!?!?!?!) OK I guess.

 

[Alzrius]

Oh yeah. There's a Turkish company currently making 5E content that got two succesful kickstarters funded (Dream Realm Storytellers). Their revenue from the two kickstarters got around 475k in dollars. If they were to publish under OGL v1.1 and make two more kickstarters to the same amount, they'd need to pay Wizards royalties to the tune of 40000 dollars, which makes around 748000 Turkish liras (which is 88 times the Turkish minimum wage).

Actually, no. According to the Gizmodo report (emphasis mine):

According to the document, “If, and only if, You are generating a significant amount of money (over $750,000 per year across all Licensed Works) from Your Licensed Works, The revenue You make from Your Licensed Works in excess of $750,000 in a single calendar year is considered “Qualifying Revenue” and You are responsible for paying Us 20% or 25% of that Qualifying Revenue.”

The draft goes on to explain that if you make $750,001, you will owe Wizards of the Coast 25 cents, as they are only asking for royalties on the one dollar made in excess of the Expert Tier. As stated in their announcement in December, WotC suspects that “less than twenty” companies are at the Expert Tier.

 

[Remathilis]

No one should like a clause that could conceivably get the Curvy Cryptid Monster Manual pulled.

What a terrible day to have eyes...

 

[S'mon]

The thing with a license is that both parties have to agree to it. If one never agrees or uses the 1.1, then they aren't beholden to it. I'm hearing a lot of things that seem to infer that you (general you) have to use 1.1 as if it's mandatory.

If (and that's a huge if) WoTC could even revoke the license I and others agreed to, that doesn't mean I'm forced to use 1.1. It's not really necessary for most things. It's just a convenience. So unless there are some serious carrots to use 1.1 if it's that restrictive, I don't see anyone using it, making it a pretty worthless and irrelevant license.

If I were giving advice (which I'm not) I'd advise anyone unsure not to agree to the OGL 1.1, for this reason. If OGL 1.0 is now 'unauthorized' by WoTC then you can no longer contract directly with them under it, but AFAICS third parties can still use it, including for previously released & licenced material.

Codega says:

According to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL.

Wizards of the Coast declined to clarify if this is in fact the case.

So it looks like we have to wait and see on this, but if they try to stop people using SRD material released under OGL 1.0, my feeling is I don't think that is going to work. They may scare some people into compliance, but they have what looks to me like a weak case, and are basically declaring war on not just the 3PP world, but the Open Software world. I think a precedent that open licence terms can be retroactively changed to mean something other than what they were said to mean, to withdraw the licenced material, is unlikely to be made, and very unlikely to stand.

 

[Nikosandros]

Is no one in the WotC offices saying "I don't think this is a good idea boss"?

One hypothesis is that some of the leaks might be coming from such a person. Of course, they might also be coming from someone breaking their NDA.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So... WotC can't force creators currently using the OGL to switch to this new license, can they? That's ridiculous. Feeling a lot better about the fact that I haven't bought any of their books in years, but actually starting to get worried for the people whose work I have been supporting.

That all hinges on whether they can in fact "de-authorize" v1.0(a), which is a very open question at this point.

Sure, WotC can try and say that it's been de-authorized and supplanted by v1.1… but can they actually stop anyone who wants to publish under v1.0a from pretending that v1.1 simply doesn't exit?