Search results

There is a whole lot going on this past week+ over the OGL, and I have written elsewhere that I believe the primary commercial reason for all of this is that Foundry VTT is already providing the sort of sizzle that WotC wants to be the sole purveyor of for 6e when its VTT is ready in 2024/25...

It's the entire REASON they are doing this in the first place. I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is about WoW money. It's about charging that subscription money to players, the "recurring revenue" through which an under-monetized D&D brand will come into its own. That, in turn, is...

I absolutely do think it is Foundry VTT. Foundry has already surpassed FG and Roll20 has been bleeding customers to it since spring 2020. Paizo now licenses directly for it. WotC won't. It conflicts with their plans. Foundry VTT is the #2 VTT software in the marketplace -- and it's not getting...

Ignore that minor stuff folks: pay attention to what WotC is doing and why. Why are they releasing the 5.1 SRD under 1.2 -- when they already did this under OGL 1.0a? Pay attention: Their VTT Tabletop Policy is at page 6. Here is the reason we are having this discussion in the first place...

You can sue on the thinnest of bases under the common law. So the question is not a reasonable one, as "grounds" is a wide open term. Could WotC sue you for some relief for purporting to use 1.0a? Sure. Problem: this is theoretical speculation now in a vacuum of facts. It is not helpful...

The word "accomplice" suggests an intention to be a party to an offense. No. WotC is pursuing an arguable position concerning matters of contract and licensing. The criminal law has no place in this discussion. At all.

On the "authorized" topic, the idea and intention in s.9 according to what Dancey has said is that was simply saying that in the event WotC makes a change in the license later (updates it) the publisher can use any version it prefers of a previously approved OGL license -- but it has to be text...

I edited that -- you'll note that I have changed it from what you have quoted (for the good reaosn that it is wrong!) I was fighting my computer to log back on to change that for 90 minutes! But I have now. It now reads: "It doesn't govern a license for wholly new material - and it arguably...

There appears to be a difference between what I understand how the "de-authorization" argument works, and how others conceive of it. The confusion (in some quarters) arises through a muddle of unclear thinking - and a confusion between forms of an offer yet to be accepted, and the form of an...

Now you are talking about risk; risk varies for a number of reasons both objectively - and subjectively. What to you is a "no-brainer" (that you will not incur that risk) may be to somebody else a risk they reasonably decide to run. At the end of the day, a publisher decides to do something --...

This is not accurate. Revocation is not de-authorization. They can mean different things. Something that has already been published under the OGL 1.0a is effectively licensed and lawfully released content; it stands on its own. What was legal last month is legal next month. It remains legal to...

No way. They aren't letting a free to play competitor go up against their monthly sub fee VTT. They only have to live with what is out there now. The OGL 1.0a and what has been published under it is not something they can escape at this stage, so they have to live with it and work around it...

I have read Kyle Brink's statement. There are no surprises in it. At this point, I am convinced of WotC's fundamental commercial plan: Their Mission Objective : to sell subscriptions to 6e and its VTT on DDB at a recurring monthly rate for DMs and players alike, ideally resulting in recurring...

No. I think it would be $20.

I'm in inclined to agree with this. The current "lowest tier" on DDB does not include homebrew right now - that requires at least a DM with a subscription sharing material with players. So this does not seem shocking, it sounds like "DDB". The $30 top "platinum tier" sounds like a rate that...

You are entitled to your opinion, however, if you do not realize that is it a minority view among the informed, you are engaging in stubborn self-deception. Markets and "consumer reaction" are an agglomeration of individual reactions and judgments. The view of "the bunch" prevails.

In fairness, it's like WotC took a massive smelly dump in the bathroom and has opened the door into the main hallway of the home. The horror has rolled out like a green stinking cloud; it has lingerered in the air now for about 9+ days running. Last Friday, they attempted to give it the DDB...

Nor I; Twitch only it would seem.

Oh there's LOTS of fanfare -- just not the trumpets some might have preferred!

WoW got around that problem rather easily. My guess is the local FLGS or even Wal-Mart would sell them for DDB, too. I'm not trying to spread fear, but maybe a little doubt. Anyways, something similar for DDB seems a reasonable product to address the concern you mention.