Search results

The scenario you are describing here is exactly what they were trying do. I would only disagree with calling that tactic "legitimate" precisely because that clause was not offered in good faith in the belief that it would be acceptable to the other party. It was simply coercion, and I don't...

If they were going for a win-win situation then they would have negotiated with the publishers. They would have said, "This is what we want, what would make it worthwhile for you to sign off on that?" Then the different parties would have traded ideas and worked cooperatively to craft a license...

A "win-win" means both sides benefit, not just WotC. The deal they were offering was not about helping 3pp's but to force them to grant complete control over to WotC which would only benefit WotC.

We are both making assumptions and yours are not the "Occam's Razors approach", they are just your assumptions. You are assuming that WotC was going for a win-win situation but that clearly is false based upon the fact they included in OGL 1.1 a clause that would let them change or cancel the...

The most likely explanation is that they were trying to cut the top 3pp's down to size.

Kickstarter straight up told WotC that these sky high royalties were too much for creators to be able afford. WotC knew that and went forward with them precisely because they were trying to hamstring the top 3pp's not because they thought the royalty rate was reasonable.

It was for two years, after which they would be at the mercy of WotC. This was just a lure to get 3pp to abandon the OGL which granted them massive amounts of freedom, so yes, this was all about WotC trying to get control.

It is far easier to destroy the Death Star while it is being built than after it is finished and fully operational. Furthermore, you seem to accept that the motivation for this new license is to prevent people from publishing hate speech. But their original attempt at this license went far...

You are arguing that people should not complain about WotC trying to force everyone to agree to a license that puts major restrictions on the community without any meaningful benefit to the community. Instead you are saying that everyone should just roll over and accept the agreement with the...

The CC license is extremely limited in what you can use with it so it is nothing like OGL 1.0 while the new "O"GL is revocable even though it says it's irrevocable since it says that WotC can veto any of your work if they find it objectionable and you are prohibited from challenging their...

Here's the fundamental problem with your argument. If WotC is willing to try to steamroll people for using OGL 1.0(a), then they would be willing to steamroll people for not using using the OGL. And if people can't afford to defend themselves, then it doesn't matter if your argument would hold...

But Greggy watched some YouTube videos and so everyone can totally trust their livelihoods to his legal expertise. And if WotC sues you, all you would have to do is send them that video and WotC would totally say "oopsie! Our mistake" and leave you alone.

They outright declared that they are plowing ahead with a new licensing agreement. That is factually true so my comment is literally true as well. I did not make the claim that you are reading into my statement. However, your inference of my deeper meaning was reasonable for the very same...

Not only is there a legal risk for WotC to sue Paizo, but any litigation against anyone over the OGL will both exasperate and prolong the PR nightmare WotC is embroiled in and they certainly want to avoid that, especially with a big budget movie just about to be released. WotC has totally...

Sure, but I'm an specifically trying to understand what Max thinks WotC's objective would be in suing a "weakling".

So you think that a game store would actually carry something with blatant hate speech? That seems highly unlikely. And if the game store did carry such a book then the problem would be with the game store owner. Further, no one needs the OGL to produce an RPG with hate in it. And if if such a...

What do you mean by "force concessions or win that way"? Do you mean WotC would pursue a victory that would only be applicable to the weakling company and have no relevance to any other company?

But why do you support it? You aren't going to buy anything that you find objectionable so why do you want WotC to have veto power over every single D&D product?

Paizo and Green Ronin can't afford a 25% royalty, it would destroy their businesses and WotC knows that. And the money WotC would get from Kickstarter projects would be an utterly trivial amount relative to their corporate revenue goals. Tens of thousands of dollars is nothing to a corporation...

The royalty structure was deliberately set to prevent any company from getting over $750k. There is no company that could afford such a crazy rate and so none of them would bother trying. This is why people are mistaken to think that the point of the royalties is to get a piece of the pie when...