1.0a is effectively dead even if Wizards backs down, but it is still important to fight for it.

[Glade Riven]

They want to use the threat of a lawsuit but it's pretty obvious they really, really don't want to end up in court over the OGL (which is why they keep including "you can't sue" language).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

2 books (on dndbeyond) = 60 dollars.
12*7 = 84 dollars.

This is 144 dollars. Not that bad.
15 Million * 144 would be enough to make everyone at hasbro happy.

This makes only 3% of your total expenditures?

144/0.03 = 4800
IF your wife finds out, your done.

I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol, RPG books, and wild women.

The other half I wasted.

 

[Umbran]

If you don't respect your customer base you quickly find you don't have much of a customer base.

So what? Why care? You already admitted you don't need WotC.
Now you are saying we should fight for their respect... so they have a customer base?

...the problem is the executives brought in the last 5-ish years. They don't seem to understand what business they are in.

Yes, which is why I said leadership needed understanding.

 

[Glade Riven]

You are over-thinking it.
There is a difference between needs and wants. I want D&D, but I don't need D&D. I can walk away, like I've walked away from Star Wars and Star Trek. That's the power I have as a consumer. If I don't like what they are doing, I vote with my wallet.

 

[Clint_L]

2 books (on dndbeyond) = 60 dollars.
12*7 = 84 dollars.

This is 144 dollars. Not that bad.
15 Million * 144 would be enough to make everyone at hasbro happy.

This makes only 3% of your total expenditures?

144/0.03 = 4800
IF your wife finds out, your done.

Nah, they know - I was just kidding. I think they figure my Dwarven Forge problem is a lot cheaper than me buying a new sportscar or something.

And last year was a pricey one because I backed a fair few kickstarters as well - Reaper alone got over 500 bucks. This year will be less. I promise! (I've already spent 600 bucks and it is still January and there is a new DF kickstarter next month...)

 

[JThursby]

But I'd argue that it's still important to fight for it.

Depends on what you mean by fighting it.

If you mean fighting the claim that 1.0a can be deauthorized, that is for the courts. Paizo already made it clear they're ready for that battle, so it will happen, just in a way that we can't influence.

If you mean fighting to make Wizards realize their OGL strategy is folly, then yes absolutely. What Wizards needs to realize is that their public image is contingent on delivering a good product. Any scandal can be forgiven with a good enough product, eg No Man's Sky's horrendous launch vs it's post launch success. Building a product worth buying should be their priority #1. Their attempts to cut off competing products at the knees are utterly failing, so refocusing on their own efforts should be the message we send them. Failure to deliver an adequate product = less consumer revenue. Voting with your wallet works, just look at 4e.

 

[Alzrius]

If you mean fighting the claim that 1.0a can be deauthorized, that is for the courts. Paizo already made it clear they're ready for that battle, so it will happen

The more I read from attorneys, here and on other sites, the less certain about that I become. Because as I understand it, here's what has to happen for a court battle to take place:

1) WotC goes ahead and officially declared the OGL v1.0a to be revoked/de-authorized as of a specific date.
2) Some publisher declares "damn the torpedoes!" and keeps publishing new content under it.
3) WotC sends them a cease and desist letter. [Optional]
4) The publisher files for declaratory judgment. [Optional]
5) WotC files suit against the publisher for copyright infringement.
6) The publisher counters, saying that they're not infringing on WotC's copyright because they're publishing under the OGL v1.0a.
7) WotC points out that they de-authorized/revoked the OGL v1.0a, so the license is invalid, and thus the publisher's stuff infringes their copyrights.
8) Either a judge or a jury decides who's right.
9) Appeals are filed; if accepted, go back to step 5 and repeat.

Now, steps three and four are, as noted, optional; I'm given to understand that the whole "declaratory judgment" thing is basically a step that doesn't legally force anyone to do anything.

What's more notable is how unlikely steps 2 and 5 are; most publishers aren't going to want to operate in an environment where they're essentially courting a lawsuit with a multinational corporation, while Hasbro doesn't seem to care nearly as much about a tiny publisher (and compared to them, all other TTRPG publishers are tiny) doing their own thing; they're in it for the VTT subscriptions/micro-transactions.

So we might not get the court battle that a lot of people are expecting.

 

[Glade Riven]

Um, okay, we won? Wow.
So...OGL 1.0a isn't revoked, now, but it's kinda dead for 5e because Creative Commons Attribution is a better, stronger license. Neat.

Sorry, still in a bit of shock.

 

[Bix and Box]

They've had a year where most of their films didn't make money or barely broke even after marketing.

In 2022, they released:
Avatar 2: $2B and counting
Doc Strange 2: $955MM
Black Panther 2: $840MM
Thor 4: $770MM

On Dec 17, 2021, they released Spider-Man: No Way Home: $1.9MM, much of which was earned in 2022.

All in the post-pandemic movie environment.

 

[Glade Riven]

Avatar 2: $2B and counting - The only real hit they've had because never bet against James Cameron. Also he's still working under an older 21st Century Fox contract and has more independence than other Disney-owned production teams.
Doc Strange 2: $955MM - Made money, barely due to marketing costs
Black Panther 2: $840MM - Broke even due to marketing costs.
Thor 4: $770MM - Maybe broke even due to marketing costs.
Spider-Man: No Way Home: $1.9MM - very successful but had to split with Sony.

Doctor Strange 2, Black Panther 2, and Thor 4 were all expected by Disney to break a billion and none of them have. And they hit the numbers they did thanks to higher ticket prices, not more people going to the theater (except Spiderman and Avatar 2). Also anything that goes up on streaming in a shorter time period means Disney gets a smaller cut from the theatrical release.

Turning Red: $20 Million on a budget of $175 million - lost money. Might get an oscar.
Lightyear: $226.4 Million on a budget of $200 million - lost money. Remember, Disney doesn't get the full theatrical box office.
Strange World: $73.2 Million on a budget of $135 to 180 million - lost money. Marketing budget was raided to push Black Panther 2.

I've, uh, been watching too much Valliant Renegade on Youtube.

Where Hasbro has been hurt is that the only one of those movies that sold toys was Spiderman: No Way Home. Add on that the pandemic rescheduling of movies often meant retailers had put entire toy lines on CLEARANCE by the time the movie came out. Black Panther 2 merch hasn't sold worth a crap. Disney also insists on including characters that don't sell for noble but not profitable reasons because the big sellers are Spiderman, Iron Man, and Captain America. And the only Star Wars merch that sells is either Classic Trilogy or The Mandalorian. The rest of Disney Star Wars doesn't sell. These are very, very expensive contracts.

This is why Hasbro is pivoting towards brands they own, starting with D&D and Transformers this year. They really need these movies to succeed to sell toys.

 

[Bix and Box]

Avatar 2: $2B and counting - The only real hit they've had because never bet against James Cameron. Also he's still working under an older 21st Century Fox contract and has more independence than other Disney-owned production teams.
Doc Strange 2: $955MM - Made money, barely due to marketing costs
Black Panther 2: $840MM - Broke even due to marketing costs.
Thor 4: $770MM - Maybe broke even due to marketing costs.
Spider-Man: No Way Home: $1.9MM - very successful but had to split with Sony.

If Avatar 2 is the only hit they had, was Spider-Man not a hit? Or Doc Strange?

That sounds like a hell of a lot of marketing, to just break even on over 3/4 of a billion dollars. Source please?

 

[Glade Riven]

Spiderman was a hit but it's Sony produced, so it's not pure Disney profits. And Sauce. The man is a financial analyst and brings the receipts. Yes, world wide marketing often costs as much as the movie to make because marketing has gotten a lot more expensive in the last few years. Part of it is the diffusion of eyeballs away from network TV and even Cable/Satellite TV.

Every one of these movies was expected by Disney to make a billion. That's been the Hollywood benchmark since Batman vs Superman (which it didn't hit). Disney has also been over-spending money on streaming and lost a lot of the tertiary market by burning licensing deals and DVD residuals by focusing on their streaming platform.

 

[Bix and Box]

Every one of these movies was expected by Disney to make a billion.

In the pre-pandemic paradigm.

But I do agree with you here:

Disney has also been over-spending money on streaming and lost a lot of the tertiary market by burning licensing deals and DVD residuals by focusing on their streaming platform.

 

[Glade Riven]

In the pre-pandemic paradigm.

In a post-Spiderman: No Way Home paradigm. Or Top Gun. Or Avatar 2: Way of Water. All the movies that failed to break a billion were greenlit under Iger. Who is now back in charge? Which is weird.

Again, you don't replace your CEO on a Sunday. Ever. Except this one time, by Disney. This also seems to tie back to this activist investor group, too, that Iger and co are in a fight with, thanks to Perlmutter (former Marvel boss). Either way, the company is in a very bad place right now.

 

[Ashtagon]

The more I read from attorneys, here and on other sites, the less certain about that I become. Because as I understand it, here's what has to happen for a court battle to take place:

1) WotC goes ahead and officially declared the OGL v1.0a to be revoked/de-authorized as of a specific date.
2) Some publisher declares "damn the torpedoes!" and keeps publishing new content under it.
3) WotC sends them a cease and desist letter. [Optional]
4) The publisher files for declaratory judgment. [Optional]
5) WotC files suit against the publisher for copyright infringement.
6) The publisher counters, saying that they're not infringing on WotC's copyright because they're publishing under the OGL v1.0a.
7) WotC points out that they de-authorized/revoked the OGL v1.0a, so the license is invalid, and thus the publisher's stuff infringes their copyrights.
8) Either a judge or a jury decides who's right.
9) Appeals are filed; if accepted, go back to step 5 and repeat.

Now, steps three and four are, as noted, optional; I'm given to understand that the whole "declaratory judgment" thing is basically a step that doesn't legally force anyone to do anything.

What's more notable is how unlikely steps 2 and 5 are; most publishers aren't going to want to operate in an environment where they're essentially courting a lawsuit with a multinational corporation, while Hasbro doesn't seem to care nearly as much about a tiny publisher (and compared to them, all other TTRPG publishers are tiny) doing their own thing; they're in it for the VTT subscriptions/micro-transactions.

So we might not get the court battle that a lot of people are expecting.

Sure, it's really unlikely that a court battle will ever take place over this. But the FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) around the possibility of a court case is enough to dissuade any small publisher from trying to use the OGL as is. WotC doesn't need to take it to court; they just have to maintain the potential implicit threat to do so.

It's like catching a burglar about to break in to your house, and he says, okay, I won't break in. But he carries on lurking in your street with a half-brick in hand, watching your house. You're going to keep watching him regardless, at least until he disarms himself and leaves the street.

It's not enough for WotC to say they've decided not to de-authorise (unspoken: for now). They need to make an updated OGL that closes the loose wording that allowed them to open up the idea that they could. That's the only way that any 3PP can rationally consider the OGL as a long-term licencing basis for their business.

 

[Glade Riven]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

 

[Ashtagon]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

Yes, I think everyone knows CC can't be backtracked at this point. The problem is the two decades worth of material under OGL licence that can't be used under CC, but also can't be safely used under OGL.

This issue isn't just about being free to use the SRD (only 5.1 for now; this is something else that needs to be pushed). It's also about being able to use the corpus of material built up as source material for new works.

 

[Glade Riven]

I, for one, look forward to both C7D20 and Project Black Flag.

Personally, I'm starting to think that this was all kicked into gear by an executive at WotC that thought they could create an easy win by bullying the 3rd party players to make the upcoming Hasbro Financials look better rather than a commitment by Hasbro to consolidate control over the property. Then it backfired horribly and the Hasbro board stepped in because the company is not in a very good spot right now.

I'm not going to trust WotC or Hasbro, but I will judge them and their products based on their own merit. And either C7D20, Black Flag, and/or Level Up will be in a position to become the next Pathfinder if One D&D sucks.

 

[Stormonu]

Creative Commons is a stronger, irrevocable license and since they've published it, no backsies.

It's a better case, but never discount a lawyer's ability to find loopholes, especially when you've got a team in your pocket.