How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, changing the text is easy. Taking the decision to send a fake contract on "behalf" of the company you are working for, seems not so easy a choice. Actually it seems really reckless. That's the point I'm making.

I'm not sure why you guys are discussing this.

There's obviously no possibility that's the case nor will it be the excuse WotC uses.

We know this for two reasons:

1) The 3PPs wouldn't actually be bound by anything, so could speak out about this, and wouldn't be saying "Please wait" on responses about this.

2) WotC themselves would have come out and dismissed it, because that's what you do when someone does something like that.

As neither has happened, it's definitely not the case.

 

[Nikosandros]

I just enjoy discussing things. I agree that it is not the case.

 

[Horwath]

I just enjoy discussing things. I agree that it is not the case.

I'm sure also that it didn't happen that way,

but I would not put it pass WotC if they try to "sell" it that way to us.
if they intend to reverse the OGL decision at all, that is.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The Opening Arguments podcast will devote their episode to the OGL story this Friday.

OA’s Twitter indicates they are absolutely not on the side of open gaming.

Seriously: they think WotC is perfectly within their rights to change the license. They think WotC always intended to be able to change the license however they wanted. They think OGL 1.1 is no big deal—they even imply it’s better because it’s “kind of insane” that WotC doesn’t already get a cut of Pathfinder. And at worst, OA claims, “if you’re a niche commercial creator, you will probably have to talk to WotC.” This is all a “moral panic” based on (among other things) “bad contract-reading.” The Gizmodo article is “virtually fact-free” and filled with deliberately misleading “fearmongering”; fans should turn their pitchforks on the article’s author.

Unpopular opinion- OA (as you described) is right. Well, not the part were they are attacking a journalist. But in describing how a corporation works.

I went over this in my own thread (describing the 3e/4e transition), but Hasbro never wanted the OGL. It is completely a (happy) accident of history. Championed by Dancey and WoTC and released before Hasbro folded WoTC in completely.

So what happened next? First, Hasbro releases 3.5e! In order to differentiate their product from the OGL.
Next ... 4e. And 4e doesn't use the OGL, but used a non-open license.
When 5e was released, it was under the radar and with a small team. But even then, it is any understanding that Hasbro's lawyers fought to keep the OGL restricted to the prior version- not to expand it to make it more "5e friendly."

If you think of any major corporation and any major brand, you don't see open licensing. D&D is the exception. And now that it's making major money, they likely want that exception to end.

(Again, not a defense of Hasbro screwing over 3PP at all. Just that this was unfortunately foreseeable.)

 

[Ibrandul]

I also think that WOTC is perfectly within their rights to change it

So do many other experts (though still more experts think it’s not so clear-cut). If that were the most notable feature of OA’s position, it would not be notable. It’s the rest that’s the problem.

And I agree with @Ruin Explorer that the choice of words OA is using makes me feel very much like they've read an overview and haven't done much research or thought beyond the initial implications.

That’s their M.O.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

That’s their M.O.

yes it is

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Backpaddeling and telling us they are sorry is needed.

Exactly. I dont do grudge, it cost too much energy.

If they came out with an apology saying:
''sorry, we did not realize the reach of our actions, what benefits our brand cant be the only the only justification when you are an industry leader. We've burned bridges with our esteemed community which is the foundation of the game and we want to apologize for it. D&D is your game and we are the caretaker of of it; in the past week, we've failed our duty. Trying to mend our relationship will take time and we'll try our utmost to do so. Know that the OGL will stay intact; we'll contact our leading partners creating under the OGL to see what we can do for them. yadayada''

I'd be ok. And the next time they try to pull the same crap? Well we'll sharpen the pitchforks once more until they apologize once again.

 

[Aldarc]

The current silence does suggest that WotC plans on going through with the OGL 1.1.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

What else should they do?

Backpaddeling and telling us they are sorry is needed.

They could take responsibility for "misjudging" the situation and say they're going to reevaluate the situation. That would be the appropriate thing to do in my opinion.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The current silence does suggest that WotC plans on going through with the OGL 1.1.

Yep, that's my reading too.

Silence is rarely a sign that someone is reconsidering, its more of a brief moment of inner dialogue to brace themselves and bolster their resolve.