OGL D&D Beyond Cancellations Changed WotCs Plans

DD-beyond-2364798935.jpg


Gizmodo has revealed that the partial OGL v1.1 walkback yesterday was in response to the fan campaign to cancel D&D Beyond subscriptions, with "five digits" worth of cancellations. However, the site also reveals that management at the company believed that fans were overreating and that it would all be forgotten in a few months.

In order to delete a D&D Beyond account entirely, users are funneled into a support system that asks them to submit tickets to be handled by customer service: Sources from inside Wizards of the Coast confirm that earlier this week there were “five digits” worth of complaining tickets in the system. Both moderation and internal management of the issues have been “a mess,” they said, partially due to the fact that WotC has recently downsized the D&D Beyond support team.

Yesterday's walkback removed the royalties from the license, but still 'de-authorized' the OGL v1.0a, something which may or may not be legally possible, depending on who you ask.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

This was not the purpose of the OGL...
so you just looking for a fight?
it was created so that no single company could end D&D by taking it out of print forever. the issue is those print runs of books still need to be funded by someone.
It was created so it wouldn't go out of print...
There have been changes to 5e throughout it's lifetime...
again, call it version instead of edition then... the 2014 PHB will be out of print and a new one with rules changes will be the defualt in 2024. I don't care what name you call that, it means the 2014 book was NOT ever green.
Citation please.
these threads are moving so fast I will try to go back and find it... Mericc I think was who the original poster was...
Was this sustained and if so for how long?
over a year, and this was well into the edition.
Also just to put this into perspective... WoW's total revenue for Q1 of 2022 was 170+ million dollars
no... that is the problem... there is no amount of money these books will make that will make it evergreen... I will now go back to see if I can find it for you.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think you are ignoring a particularly massive change in the landscape, to the tune of all the new players who never went through an edition change.
No, infact I think that is WHY wotc says "It's not an edition" because half or more of the people playing don't really know what a D&D edition is and I bet 10% or less remember the 1e to 2e change.
 

Scribe

Legend
No, infact I think that is WHY wotc says "It's not an edition" because half or more of the people playing don't really know what a D&D edition is and I bet 10% or less remember the 1e to 2e change.

Thats....what I am saying.

Its why the goal is to keep OneD&D compatible with 5e, so that the plebs do not revolt when gasp it is an edition change.
 

Citation please.
took a bit but I found it... I should start a file and label it "since people on enworld want to treat this as a peer reviewed article"


edit: and I was wrong... it was almost HALF a mil per month. so in a quarter (3 months) $1.5m
 
Last edited:

ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
If they stop people from making a D&D/3pp/D20 G* word book I am happy. If they stop people from making a D&D/3pp/D20 'final solution' source book I am happy.
How many "G* word" Romany OGL (I'm using OGL as what I assume to be the intended meaning of what you mean by the term "D&D/3pp/D20") products have been released since August of 2000? (I recall Wizbro themselves have released something like that in that since that time, but to the best of my knowledge those weren't OGL products.)

How many "final solution" OGL products have been released since August of 2000?

What are the specific names of these, existing in the real world at any time period since August of 2000, OGL products that need to be stopped? (I'm personally at a loss to recall any.)

How exactly would Wizbro going back on their word by breaking the terms of their own license and revoking the OGL 1.0a do a better job of addressing your concerns regarding this than what has appeared to me to have been working just fine since August of 2000?

I'm of the mind that the industry has policed itself better since August of 2000 regarding OGL products than what Wizbro's suggested top-down model would.

I thought the OGLs purpose was so that D&D would never go out of print?
"I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners. I know just how close that came to happening. In 1997, TSR had pledged most of the copyright interests in D&D as collateral for loans it could not repay, and had Wizards of the Coast not rescued it I'm certain that it would have all gone into a lenghty bankruptcy struggle with a very real chance that D&D couldn't be published until the suits, appeals, countersuits, etc. had all been settled (i.e. maybe never). The OGL enabled that as a positive side effect."
 


raniE

Adventurer
so if no one has done this bad thing, it would totally hurt all these good people that don't want to do the bad thing... this argument is nonsense.

If we can change it, this is a good change.
No. Because anything that WotC, or whoever puts a morality clause into an open license, wants to get rid of will mysteriously end up being whatever the morality license said was bad. The horrible example used by that Opening Arguments podcast of some terrible thing WotC should be allowed to stop wasn't a book of bigotry, but an OGL sex book, which we of course have had tons of examples of published since Book of Erotic Fantasy in 2003.

Since there is no actual threat, and a definite risk of harm, then the price is way too high for any morality clause.
 

Voadam

Legend
so if no one has done this bad thing, it would totally hurt all these good people that don't want to do the bad thing... this argument is nonsense.

If we can change it, this is a good change.
They seem to be trying to give themself the power to potentially block people from doing the bad thing that nobody has done by giving them the ability to block anything they don't like, driving out the OGL market as a safe harbor for publishing D&D stuff, and knocking out the ability to continue making D&D SRD based games or game stuff if WotC ever does not want people to.

WotC also apparently has a track record of yanking some DMs Guild products for reasons that a number of people are upset about.

I do not see this as a good change.
 



The morality clause is a smokescreen. See the racist Hadozee text and art put out by WotC. The NFT clause is a smokescreen. See the old news that Hasbro sells NFTs. Etc.
okay, but those smoke screens are GOOD changes, so if we have to have changes those should stay while we argue for not having predatory fees and maybe to give more then 6 months to change wheels (I mean 6 months is okay but I see no reason they can't give until the 50th and the big new edition)
 

raniE

Adventurer
okay, but those smoke screens are GOOD changes, so if we have to have changes those should stay while we argue for not having predatory fees and maybe to give more then 6 months to change wheels (I mean 6 months is okay but I see no reason they can't give until the 50th and the big new edition)
No, they're not. No one could make a D&D NFT as it was, all the product identity is unavailable under the OGL. What's WotC going to do, stop someone from making an NFT of a picture of a random wizard? The only people ready to make D&D NFTs are Hasbro, and they can do it whatever the OGL says.
 

No, they're not. No one could make a D&D NFT as it was, all the product identity is unavailable under the OGL. What's WotC going to do, stop someone from making an NFT of a picture of a random wizard? The only people ready to make D&D NFTs are Hasbro, and they can do it whatever the OGL says.
I can't really say I understand what the point of NFTs is, but could you take this text from the SRD, write it onto the token, pair it with some artwork, and try to sell it to kids, many of whom are already buying such things from unscrupulous digital game publishers?

Vorpal Sword​

Weapon (any sword that deals slashing damage), legendary (requires attunement)

You gain a +3 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon. In addition, the weapon ignores resistance to slashing damage.

When you attack a creature that has at least one head with this weapon and roll a 20 on the attack roll, you cut off one of the creature's heads. The creature dies if it can't survive without the lost head. A creature is immune to this effect if it is immune to slashing damage, doesn't have or need a head, has legendary actions, or the GM decides that the creature is too big for its head to be cut off with this weapon. Such a creature instead takes an extra 6d8 slashing damage from the hit.
 

No, they're not. No one could make a D&D NFT as it was, all the product identity is unavailable under the OGL.
I mean I don't really care about (or even fully understand why anyone uses) NFTs, I was thinking the hate speach thing that everyone keeps saying isn't something people really care about.
What's WotC going to do, stop someone from making an NFT of a picture of a random wizard? The only people ready to make D&D NFTs are Hasbro, and they can do it whatever the OGL says.
 






ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
I watch as people pretend any change is the worst thing ever... so yeah, I ignore everything you said
Are you avoid addressing any of the relevant points I made because you're unable to find even one specific example of disparaging depictions of "G* word" Romani or depictions the "final solution" in any OGL release in the past 22½ years? Are you attempting to cast anyone unhappy with any the potential de-authorizatrion of OGL 1.0a as being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...?
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top