Search results

"OGL was a peace deal between people wanting to create fantasy content. Wizards just shredded that peace deal."

You are right, they wouldn't be companies. There would be 1000 small groups of people playing the fantasy heartbreaker the guy in the lokal gaming store or discord group drew up. D&D would likely be gone, as WotC couldn't find any way to profit from the IP. World of Darkness would likely still...

The thing is: It is a negotiation. But it is not a negotiation between me and them. It is a negotiation between the community and them. And to them community is statistics. Each person actually deciding to never buy anything from wizards again is the community saying: Sorry, my offer just got...

Now that main stream press have started picked things up, there might be a chance even people on this forum might be asked for comments. So far the press releases I have seen have been quite poor at explaining what this whole OGL thing is, and legalese make for boring and not very engaging...

Just want to say, I think we use "platform company" slightly differently. Your use seem to be close to what I would call "Open platform company". Microsoft has always depended on 3rd party creators to make stuff they benefit from. DOS is a platform for others to use - Had they wanted they could...

I haven't read it all yet, did they say anything about using OGC in 2.0 material? My suspicion has been that the reason they call it ogl is to let people still derive from that material, while not needing to follow the 1.0a terms (including atribution)

Well, it was only the claim that Microsoft somehow wasn't a platform company when the execs where there that I thought were surely mistanken. I cannot say for certain that the described mindset is actually not in play, but that would be despite knowing very well the theory around ecosystem...

Paizo starting to release 5ed material, and PF2 being based on OGL and still far to early in it's lifecycle to even contemplate new version? I seriously doubt so.

You are mistaken. Cynthia Williams, that took over as president for WotC just this autumn, came directly from Microsoft. https://www.linkedin.com/in/cynthia-williams-9382845/

" The 'creator badge' this seems a bit sus, and we'll have to see this badge when when it comes out. but apparently the badge will have the D&D ampersand on it making it easy to identify for wizards and consumers, and remove the need for the OGL text inside the product " (My bolding) Also worth...

I seriously doubt it. I have read various articles about ecosystem building in software. It appear most are agreeing independent creators making new content for your platform is an essential component for the ecosystem around the platform to be healthy (along with roles like promoters and...

<double post>

If paizo manage to assertain their current PF2 OGL material do not contain any OGC they don't directly own, and release that into the new open platform, you have something completely blowing wizard's SRD out of the water in terms of content made available. Under OGL people would prefer to use...

Well, for SRD to remain in OGL v1.0a, 1.0a would have to still be at least a valid "concept". "Future products" might mean that they think noone can publish new 1.0a content, or it might mean that wizards is not going to consider releasing anything of their own under 1.0a. Notably, they still...

This is highly interesting! I agree to your assesment that in this case seem like something there would be laws prohibitting. I would think there are mechanisms in place to protect against someone entering a completely unreasonable deal due to not fully understanding the full implications of the...

(IANAL) Are you certain it isnt a contract in disguise? They are quite sneaky about it, check out the second term: " 2. Tell the Community it’s unofficial. Make it clear that your Fan Content is not endorsed or sponsored by Wizards—i.e., unofficial. Please include a note with your Fan Content...

Completely agree. But a bored guy can be allowed the hope of some fireworks sometimes, can't he? ;)

Not that I can see. The actual quote that tend to be read that way. "But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial." Also this is in the faq, so not legal language. And thinking about it for...

Remember that the lawyers here mostly were first witnessing the ogl via her cherrypicking. With those cherries it appear the conclusion that they are trying to revert was basically obvious. By the time the full document leaked, the lawyers here mainly were in denial, was mainly interested in...

Wonder if they might have the same take as me earlier in this thread. The "no longer an authorised" quote without the update context, alongside the faq claim without the term it explained, making correct legal understanding impossible. Hence rilling up people over the completely false inference...