It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[UngeheuerLich]

You just outlined, correctly, how it was really their only move.

Nope. They could have pulled through and see all crash and burn, hoping that DdD will rise up some time later.

Edit: and 40000 subscriber less seems a lot. But even with DM accounts, it is just 4 Million dollar a year. Which is not much for WotC.

 

[Jaeger]

Forgiving is something you foremost do for yourself, not the one you forgive.
People adding lauging memes adressed at the people who do want to forgive is dismissive.

Yes it is. Completely.

"It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard."

Get back onboard? Really!?

After what Wotzi wanted to do... For the second time running?

No thank you. No one should bow down and go back to lick the hand that feeds.

Also; No Forgiveness =/= Staying Angry.

Never forgive, never forget is a valid and healthy option when dealing with the completely untrustworthy.

 

[Scribe]

Edit: and 40000 subscriber less seems a lot. But even with DM accounts, it is just 4 Million dollar a year. Which is not much for WotC

No, not when Magic carries D&D on its back.

 

[RareBreed]

Yes, that the answer to the whole shebang right there: people do just actively enjoy Dungeons & Dragons. I've never trusted WotC as a company farther than I can physically throw the abstract concept of the company...but I love the products that the design team produces. If the product changed, I'd possibly grow bored and wander off.

And I do play other systems (DCC, Call of Cthulu, and Traveller are favorites).

But if you play other games, that's reasonable and means you are open to something else.

I have seen some people say in threads (on other forums, I don't recall any saying that here) that they only wish to play D&D in one incarnation or another. I also saw some Youtube videos that suggested new games to play after the OGL debacle, and people thanked the creator, because they didn't even know other games existed.

That's the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head.

 

[Parmandur]

The 5E SRD is not the extent of the open gaming content. Releasing it to the CC makes it so new 5E material can be produced, but the OGL 1.0a is needed to continue lines that exist (not to mention material related to other SRDs and games released under it).

Yes, but the CC maneuver means that the OGL isn't going to be messed with now, due to a lack of motivation.

It will be interesting to see what they do with OneD&D now: based on the playtesting so far, it will be compatible with 5E (at least 3.5-Pathfinder levels of compatible), but will they put out a new SRD, wither in CC or OGL? Will they put out 2 SRDs, or bring back a System Trademark License (which is what they should have done here, and leave the OGL alone)? There was apparently a 5.2 SRD with more material that was supposed to drop in mid-January: is that dead, or will we see that soon after all? And what about older edition D&D?

Kyle Brinks is going on an interview circuit with influences in the next week, apparently, ao hopefully we get some answers.

 

[Parmandur]

But if you play other games, that's reasonable and means you are open to something else.

I have seen some people say in threads (on other forums, I don't recall any saying that here) that they only wish to play D&D in one incarnation or another. I also saw some Youtube videos that suggested new games to play after the OGL debacle, and people thanked the creator, because they didn't even know other games existed.

That's the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head.

I mean, people really, really love D&D.

 

[Bix and Box]

and 40000 subscriber less seems a lot. But even with DM accounts, it is just 4 Million dollar a year. Which is not much for WotC.

40,000 subscribers so far.

A hell of a bell weather for lost movie ticket sales in March.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, but the CC maneuver means that the OGL isn't going to be messed with now, due to a lack of motivation.

I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.

 

[Parmandur]

I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.

Legally, the problem is that if they revise it, nothing released under 1.0a would be covered by 1.0b.

 

[RareBreed]

I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.

I have been wondering about this too. They just said they wouldn't touch it, which I take that to mean as they won't alter it...at all.

Which means, it's still revocable. I am not sure how putting it under the CC-BY affects that though.