D&D Beyond Cancellations Changed WotCs Plans

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.

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

 

[EthanSental]

It might have been said in the various threads but I’d be curious of the number of people replying to the next play test docket and survey. Not just the probably change the OGL and I quit part but just the number of people interacting with the play test for one dnd….did it drop off a little or dramatically type info.

 

[Ace]

Can someone explain the "5 digits complaining" thing? To me it sounds like it was only 5 tickets for cancelations but I know I'm not understanding it correctly.

5 Digits in American english is tens of thousands 1,2,3,4,5 digits

 

[Micah Sweet]

Each individual and each company will need to decide for themselves, of course.

For me, I think two things are needed:

1. An actual apology. I consider some of their behaviour over the past week to be unethical, so I'm afraid just walking it back isn't enough - they need to acknowledge that they tried to do something they should not, and did it badly.

2. An OGL 1.0b which tightens the language to make it clear it cannot be revoked, de-authorized, or otherwise cancelled. Oh, and a statement that any previously-open material remains open. (Also, the new OGL must make no other changes. Even the decency clause is a no-no - I simply can't trust them not to abuse it.)

(In theory, an alternative would be to embrace ORC and put all previously-open material under that. However, there are some bits and pieces in "Unearthed Arcana" and Dragon articles that I'm not sure they have the necessary rights to open in that way, and I'm afraid I have little appetite to compromise.)

I don't mind if they decide not to open OneD&D, and if they change the game so that the OGL can't be used to support it. I also don't mind if they offer a different license for OneD&D, even if that license is terrible. That's their prerogative. (I think it would be foolish and short-sighted, but it's their choice.) My interest is in reversing the damage that removing OGL 1.0a causes.

I just don't see that happening unfortunately. WotC clearly wants the 1.0a dead. If killing it was something they were willing to back off on they would have done so yesterday.

 

[RareBreed]

As a wise man once said, '...it is the doom of men that they forget.'

Merlin...from Excalibur. Or perhaps you thought of another?

 

[Blue]

Don't relax folks. Keep up the pressure and cancellations.

WotC may have changed their timing, but you don't know their plans are changed until you see an actual OGL. This bit of press can lull the gaming public into saying "it's over, we won, back to business" which is exactly what WotC are aiming for.

I'll go a step further - we know their plans HAVE NOT CHANGED.

They have lied to our faces about the OGL 1.1 being sent out for feedback as we now have multiple confirmations about companies being approached in December with contracts for sweetheart deals in terms of lowered royalties for accepting the OGL 1.1 back then. With NDAs not to discuss it.

 

[wingsandsword]

Can someone explain the "5 digits complaining" thing? To me it sounds like it was only 5 tickets for cancelations but I know I'm not understanding it correctly.

Tens of thousands, between 10,000 and 99,999.

It's called "5 digit" or "5 figure" because it's a number that is expressed as XX,XXX. . .five digits long.

 

[Blue]

Hmmm...I do wonder how this will trickle down and effect the playtest? Wonder if they will decide to pit things on hold?

Well, the 50th Anniversary of D&D is a pretty set date. Don't see anyway to push back delivery, and finalization of the content needs to happen before that. So pushing back the playtest just means less time for feedback since the delivery date is hard set.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, the 50th Anniversary of D&D is a pretty set date. Don't see anyway to push back delivery, and finalization of the content needs to happen before that. So pushing back the playtest just means less time for feedback since the delivery date is hard set.

Feedback is likely to be reduced and hard to parse at this point.

 

[Tazawa]

It'll be hard to gauge as we don't have precise numbers on the lost subs nor their value. There are multiple tiers of subscription, so that's one variable. There were "5 figures" of cancelled subscriptions, which translates to between 10,000 and 99,999 cancellations, so that's the second variable. If it's 10,000 subs lost and $5 a sub, you're looking at $50,000 lost. If it's 99,999 subs lost and $20 a sub, you're looking at almost $2 million. So it's really up in the air.

ETA: Looking at the actual sub models from DNDBeyond. They're $3 and $6/month. Average that to $4.5. The "5 figures" averages out to 54,999.5. The math on the averages equates to $247,497.75. Even if it's 99,999 and they're all top tier subs, it's only $599,994.

That’s $250K a month, $3M a year. Of recurring revenue. I work for a very large corporation. Recurring revenue is their wet dream. Losing $3M of recurring revenue in a week is the type of thing that causes frantic meetings and gets you fired if you are responsible.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's like the D&D rules are playing out before us in real life, when WOTC changes its alignment mid game from neutral to chaotic evil, there are repurcussions for that. Spitting the party up is not good strategy for the long term health and survival of the party!

Hey, be fair.

They're Lawful Evil.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Literally, it means 10,000-99,999. In actual use it's a means of obfusticating the true number (it's not that hard to write, say, 32,000) to make it look smaller or larger, depending on your goal. If you want to make 10,000 sound a lot, you say "5 figures". If you want to make 99,000 sound less than "almost a hundred thousand", you also say 5 figures.

Giving the actual number to Linda, assuming the leaker has it, would narrow down who the leaker was, since only a limited subset of employees have access to the real numbers and, since it's a moving target, it would reveal when they saw the numbers.

You can get more accuracy, but it means the people who are on your side will lose their jobs and likely get sued.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, how many are paying anything and how many of those are canceling would be the bottom line numbers of biggest impact I would expect.

I'm sure I'm going to get stuff thrown at me, but I haven't cancelled my Masters subscription yet. My whole game group (more than a dozen people) have paid for books for our games to use, and I'm not comfortable cutting everyone off at this time. I suspect there are other whales like me sticking around for the moment, even if it's uncomfortable.

Now, if WotC keeps f'in' around like this, they're definitely going to find out when I and the other whales start to cancel.

 

[Scribe]

I think it a a fundamental misunderstanding. WoTC executive see D&D less as primarily a RPG and more as a brand. Like Lord of the Rings for example. They want to a) protect it and b) monetize it. LoTR didn’t let Lego use their IP for free. Or Amazon for that matter. It was licensed and paid for.

I am not saying WoTC is correct or right but I see that as the crux of the issue.

LotR is a brand. It is setting, it is history, it is characters, it is style.

D&D is an open SRD, 'we are everything' RPG rules set.

This is Wizard's unstated issue. This is the total problem here.

The actual issue, is that D&D is not a brand at all, at least not one that is anything but generic and shallow.

 

[Incenjucar]

Hey, be fair.

They're Lawful Evil.

Neutral Evil is more fitting for those willing to haphazardly ignore the law.

 

[MockingBird]

I'm sure I'm going to get stuff thrown at me, but I haven't cancelled my Masters subscription yet. My whole game group (more than a dozen people) have paid for books for our games to use, and I'm not comfortable cutting everyone off at this time. I suspect there are other whales like me sticking around for the moment, even if it's uncomfortable.

Now, if WotC keeps f'in' around like this, they're definitely going to find out when I and the other whales start to cancel.

I haven't canceled yet either. I would like to see where all this lands before making that decision.

 

[jerryrice4949]

LotR is a brand. It is setting, it is history, it is characters, it is style.

D&D is an open SRD, 'we are everything' RPG rules set.

This is Wizard's unstated issue. This is the total problem here.

The actual issue, is that D&D is not a brand at all, at least not one that is anything but generic and shallow.

Says you but that is not how they see it. Rules sets don’t have movies and TV shows. That is the why each side cannot find a middle. Lots of RPG players see it as a game and WoTC sees it as a brand. If you read OGL 1.1 it looks exactly the type of thing Marvel, LoTR etc would have for their licensed product. We can just think Hasbro is evil. That is ok but it misses the nuance.

 

[Composer99]

I'm inclined to say that there's plenty of stuff to build a D&D brand on - and to my mind none of it requires closing off the OGL.

The brands that Hasbro/WotC might choose to emulate - LotR, Harry Potter, or Marvel/DC, in particular - aren't rulesets. They're characters. They're stories. They're icons and symbols. Think the Bat-symbol in the air, the One Ring with its Elvish script shining, Spider-Man, Superman, iconic magic wands, and on and on.

Nothing about the OGL prevents WotC from leveraging those elements of D&D - almost none of which are part of any SRD (save, perhaps, for the varieties of dragon) - into a brand. At least, not IMO. Nothing about the OGL keeps beholders, Tiamat, rust monsters, Drizz't, the D&D ampersand, or the Heroes of the Lance (etc.) from appearing on t-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs, and so on.

Yes, many D&D characters and stories are separated into different settings - but I suspect that's why the new "implied setting" that comes across in 1D&D playtest documents is "The D&D Multiverse", which ties them all together.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Neutral Evil is more fitting for those willing to haphazardly ignore the law.

Neutral Evil doesn't typically try to get things done through the law, IMO. That's too slow and too indirect and pretending that the law matters to NE.

(That's right: An argument about alignment is always on topic at ENWorld!)

 

[Yaarel]

Can someone explain the "5 digits complaining" thing? To me it sounds like it was only 5 tickets for cancelations but I know I'm not understanding it correctly.

5-digit figures:

10,000
99,999

 

[jerryrice4949]

I'm inclined to say that there's plenty of stuff to build a D&D brand on - and to my mind none of it requires closing off the OGL.

The brands that Hasbro/WotC might choose to emulate - LotR or Marvel/DC, in particular - aren't rulesets. They're characters. They're stories. They're icons and symbols. Think the Bat-symbol in the air, the One Ring with its Elvish script shining, Spider-Man, Superman, Ms Marvel, and on and on.

Nothing about the OGL prevents WotC from leveraging those elements of D&D - almost none of which are part of any SRD (save, perhaps, for the varieties of dragon) - into a brand. At least, not IMO. Nothing about the OGL keeps beholders, Tiamat, rust monsters, Drizz't, the D&D ampersand, or the Heroes of the Lance (etc.) from appearing on t-shirts, ball caps, coffee mugs, and so on.

Yes, many D&D characters and stories are separated into different settings - but I suspect that's why the new "implied setting" that comes across in 1D&D playtest documents is "The D&D Multiverse", which ties them all together.

I tend to agree with you. But reverse it. Could you ever see Marvel/DC, Harry Potter and LoTR ever having an OGL of any type. Of course not. It is not apples to apples and I understand that. And the difference is D&D was a game before it became whatever it is now.