WotC Shannon Appelcline the layoffs and the OGL fiasco.

[mamba]

Naw, legally they would have been fine: listening to the more objective analysis at the time, their legal case seemed pretty doled (hence why I call the OGL status quo sand: it blows away in the wind). They stopped because of subscribers threatening to leave, and money

I disagree, they had no case, I know a few lawyers said otherwise (while others agreed that they did not), but that is as with everything, you will always find one for either side / different opinions

I agree they stopped because of the blowback already, they had enough money to drag out a court case and maybe ‘win’ by outspending the other side that cannot keep up, rather than an actual ruling

 

[Staffan]

I had misremembered. Apologies.

Nonetheless, prior to 2003/04 it seemed most (though not all) third-party publishers were using the d20 license. After the insertion of the morality clause the d20 license dropped sharply out of favor, and OGL-only products became the norm.

Hmm. I think you're right that more companies were doing OGL-only products later in the lifecycle, but I don't think the morality clause was the reason. Rather, it was more that they wanted to make standalone games based on the d20 engine, and as such wanted to include character creation rules and/or make changes to the rules that went beyond what the d20 STL allowed. I'm sure there were some that went OGL-only due to the morality clause, but probably not that many. The only one I can think of off-hand (other than the BOEF) might have been Mongoose's Conan, but that could either be because of stand-alone-ness or because they had scantily clad ladies in the margin (and possibly other) illustrations.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I still don't think it was blown back that stopped it, I mean it likely made things uncomfortable, but I believe the deciding factor was legal issues, they realized what they were doing wouldn't survive legal challenges, and they couldn't buy off all 3rd parties, it was blow back for nothing, that saved the OGL.

I find that to be inaccurate. Without beating that dead horse (I really don't want to), I think it's sufficient to say that the OGL was written at a time when that particular type of licensing was still being tested out, it had peculiarities not shared by subsequent licensing mechanisms, and subsequent decisions have called into question its continuing validity.

It's why they (wisely) decided to use the Creative Commons license moving forward.

That said, litigation is always a risk. But the idea that the deciding factor was a legal one is not accurate. The legal strategy was mapped out prior to the rollout.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree, they had no case, I know a few lawyers said otherwise (while others agreed that they did not), but that is as with everything, you will always find one for either side / different opinions

I agree they stopped because of the blowback already, they had enough money to drag out a court case and maybe ‘win’ by outspending the other side that cannot keep up, rather than an actual ruling

True,but the "OGL doesn't do what they thought it did" lawyers seemed to have the better case. The real eye row raiser was that one IP lawyer Podcaster who laid out that game mechanics are probably protective IP, after all.

 

[jgsugden]

Bob gets a job at a new company. The Shareholders tell him to make them rich in order to get a big bonus. Bob can either build a business that he doesn't deeply understand, or cut costs and ride out the blockback long enough to make it look like Bob didn't tank the company, but short enough that the actual failures caused by the loss of experienced professionals do not significantly manifest to the point they can't be covered up. Bob then leaves for the next opportunity and things crater - creating the illusion that Bob was the only thing holding it together.

Or, Bob just retires after his big bonuses.

Either way, Bob wins.

My thought: We should put restrictions on compensation for executive officers - not to limit the total, but to make their compensation dependent upon long term prosperity of the company. You don't get a bonus for what happens in 2023 - you get it for what happens in 2023 to 2032. We'd put salary limits in place, and then put bonus limitations in place requiring them to be based upon future performance. It would have to be an across the 'board' restriction to work, but it would drastically reduce these idiotic short term plans. We'd still get layoffs - but fewer of them would be designed around getting a bonus in the current year and more would be aimed at true long term optimization. And before you say it can't work - there are a lot of places where we use similar techniques - just not in compensation.

 

[Staffan]

My thought: We should put restrictions on compensation for executive officers - not to limit the total, but to make their compensation dependent upon long term prosperity of the company. You don't get a bonus for what happens in 2023 - you get it for what happens in 2023 to 2032.

But me want line go up NOW!

 

[LordEntrails]

I believe the head of WotC is used to work for Microsoft and has gone on record wanting DnD & M:tG to be "lifestyle brands" which means they want coffee makers, underwear, and hot pocket money more than the what the games bring in.

I'm actually all for WotC/Hasbro changing the business model that D&D relies on. There is far too little money in the TTRPG market to fund the number of creatives the industry could otherwise support.

Support an RPG company you like.

Exactly. Spend money on them so that they can actually hire and pay people for full-time jobs at reasonable wages and benefits. Re-using content from 30 years ago, not buying 'new' stuff from publishers and sharing pdf content does not put food on anyone's table. It does not allow the industry to grow, and until it grows there is no way all of these creatives we say we support will actually be able to make a living in the industry.

Instead of rallying around a Go Fund Me when someone gets sick, put that money into buying product that can build a sustainable business that can afford to hire full-time people and provide good benefits for them.

 

[LordEntrails]

And before you say it can't work - there are a lot of places where we use similar techniques - just not in compensation.

Such as?

 

[Umbran]

The OGL was created before Hasbro. The train was already out of the station. After the OGL, Hasbro's first two moves were to introduce 3.5e very quickly, and then to move to 4e without an OGL. In other words, when Hasbro started paying attention, they tried to ditch the OGL within the first seven years.

I agree with you that this isnt about loss of institutional knowledge. It may be about failure to listen to institutional knowledge, but that's a separate kind of failure.

But, as an aside - You say "within the first seven years" as if that was fast.

We have seen the company try to ditch the OGL again, fail, try to sell an entire chunk of itself (eOne) do that badly, and try to manage the damage of that by letting go of a full 20% of its workforce, all in one year.

But trying to make a license change seven years later is supposed to seem like fast action? That doesn't hang together.

 

[delericho]

True,but the "OGL doesn't do what they thought it did" lawyers seemed to have the better case. The real eye row raiser was that one IP lawyer Podcaster who laid out that game mechanics are probably protective IP, after all.

Until it's tested in court, it's not really worth arguing. And if Roe v Wade can be overturned, all bets are off.

Truth be told, WotC probably have succeeded in killing off the OGL - nobody with any sense would tie the fate of their business to that license now. I think we're extremely lucky that they got spooked, capitulated totally, and released under Creative Commons.