D&D Beyond Twitter Account says OGL will be addressed soon

[Charlaquin]

"Prepare game for GSL 2.0!"

"No, no, no, the GSL is too generous."

"GSL too generous?"

"We're gonna have to go right to... revoking the OGL!"

(gasps all around)

"Sir, we've never gone that far before. I don't know if the lawyers can take it!"

"What's the matter, Ms. Williams*? Chicken?"

(panicked squeak) "Prepare game..." (pause, normal voice) "Prepare game for revoking the OGL! Send out NDAs! Lock down all social media accounts! Make a side deal with Critical Role! Secure all content in the DM's Guild..."

"Give me that, you petty excuse for an executive! NOW HEAR THIS--"

"Sir, hadn't you better check with public relations?"

"Aah, PR this. REVOKING THE OGL! GO!"

*I needed a name to fill in for Colonel Sandurz. In reality, it's quite possible that Cynthia Williams is playing Dark Helmet.

Cynthia Williams is Dark Helmet, Jeremy Crawford is Colonel Sandurz

 

[billd91]

Best case: WotC make a fulsome apology, issue an OGL1.1 that is that same as 1.0 but tightens the language guaranteeing that it is irrevocable, and over the next few months things revert to the status quo ante. I don't expect this to happen.

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Probably best, semi-realistic case would be for WotC to kill OGL 1.0a but amend OGL1.1 to offer similar terms as OGL 1.0a for a restricted slate of content types and far gentler royalties so that the transition for most 3pp materials and producers is as seamless as they can make it.
I don't think they're going to give up on killing OGL 1.0a unless a court determines they cannot do so. I suspect they're too concerned with someone using OGL 1.0a to produce too many competing products with D&D IP for the areas they're looking at with earnest - videos, movies, computer games, TV shows, VTT materials that they might allow with a more traditional, individual license deal.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Has a third-party publisher outright said that the alleged leaked document is factual? I'm not trying to be combative, I am legitimately asking if anyone of note has directly and unequivocally confirmed it and I've missed it. Certainly, third-party publishers are bracing for impact, so to speak, but considering the potential risk to their businesses, regardless of veracity, they have to prepare for the worst.

It's not that I have that much faith in WotC, but that I have that little faith in Battlezoo as a legitimate source.

If this is somehow not real, that would require:

a) a ton of third parties to either decide to lie together, or be duped by oen very well done leak
b) for Kickstarter to change terms of D&D kickstarters for no apparent reasons
c) for WoTC to decide to wait a week to say "this is entirely fake"
d) for Gizmodo and a respected journalist to either lie or be duped

Can you maybe see that that being sceptical about how real it is, at this stage, not really a relevant thing and putting way too much faith in WoTC?

 

[Nikosandros]

Has a third-party publisher outright said that the alleged leaked document is factual? I'm not trying to be combative, I am legitimately asking if anyone of note has directly and unequivocally confirmed it and I've missed it. Certainly, third-party publishers are bracing for impact, so to speak, but considering the potential risk to their businesses, regardless of veracity, they have to prepare for the worst.

It's not that I have that much faith in WotC, but that I have that little faith in Battlezoo as a legitimate source.

Yes. For example, Griffon Saddlebag has explicitly confirmed the text of the license.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Nor me.

Probably best, semi-realistic case would be for WotC to kill OGL 1.0a but amend OGL1.1 to offer similar terms as OGL 1.0a for a restricted slate of content types and far gentler royalties so that the transition for most 3pp materials and producers is as seamless as they can make it.

As soon as they try to kill OGL 1.0a, I don't think any other offering matters - once the safe harbour that the non-revocable license offered is gone, I think people will seek to migrate away from OGL as soon as they are able. Because whatever other conditions they offer are dwarfed by the reality that they've altered the deal and may alter it further.

In fact, even if they leave OGL 1.0a completely alone I suspect that the effect would be much the same. The safe harbour is gone, so even if WotC back off now there would need to be a guarantee that they couldn't try again in a few years.

 

[Composer99]

It's not a fake.

• Linda Codega and tenkar also have the full OGL 1.1 and their remarks on its contents line up with battlezoo
• Griffon's Saddlebag confirmed (and mentioned they sent contracts to sign!)
• Kickstarter explicitly advised they cut a deal to reduce the royalty rate for their platform

Also, If it was a fake, you'd think WotC would have said something almost immediately? Not after some small time streamer posted it, but the pro journalist at io9/Gizmodo (Codega) wrote about it, say.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. For example, Griffon Saddlebag has explicitly confirmed the text of the license.

They have confirmed the text of the document.
That document, though, is not the actual license. It is a document of mixed legalese, and natural language explanation of the legalese.

I would love to see a judge looking at a case around a license that actually contained the words "Electric Boogaloo"

 

[Blue]

Worst Case: It's as leaked, and Hasbro is willing to run up legal costs to get settlements - this never gets a judgement. Damage control happens but with no change behind it. Will quickly offer favorable licenses to media players like Matt Mercer and Matt Colville.

Realistic Case: Leak was real, but they are listening to the community uproar and attempt damage control. Non-apology apology comes out - enough to settle those who want to forgive them. Lots of focus on "this only impacts a couple of publishers around the world, this is all overreaction", deliberately focusing on the royalties and ignoring the chilling affect on Kickstarters and small 3PP that couldn't afford to be compliant. Pushes forward, and a court case happens. Also publishers learn to understand what they can publish without the OGL, and some go that route.

Best Case: Leak was real, but they are listening to the community uproar. Explain it away on overzealous new upper management who "now understands the depth of feelings of gamers worldwide". Walk back the legal changes slightly, in a way that doesn't cut them off from trying something again in the future. Publish under an OGL that prevents licensees from using earlier versions of the OGL (much like the GSL did), and then use market pressure to only allow OGL 1.1 material on D&DBeyond as they open up the platform to 3PP. Which will also prevent anything new from being put onto any competing VTTs. Make the (over??-)confident decision that with their upcoming VTT they will control the D&D VTT space and be able to force everyone into it. Pursue separate royalty schema, perhaps allowing use of special logo or something as in the past.

 

[Nikosandros]

They have confirmed the text of the document.
That document, though, is not the actual license. It is a document of mixed legalese, and natural language explanation of the legalese.

I would love to see a judge looking at a case around a license that actually contained the words "Electric Boogaloo"

Well, it was just a tweet, but they said that it was the text and there was an attached contract to sign in order to accept the text. I'll admit that in a tweet there might be some (potentially important) nuance missing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's not a fake.

• Linda Codega and tenkar also have the full OGL 1.1 and their remarks on its contents line up with battlezoo
• Griffon's Saddlebag confirmed (and mentioned they sent contracts to sign!)
• Kickstarter explicitly advised they cut a deal to reduce the royalty rate for their platform

Also, If it was a fake, you'd think WotC would have said something almost immediately? Not after some small time streamer posted it, but the pro journalist at io9/Gizmodo (Codega) wrote about it, say.

Yeah, random YouTubers they can ignore, but they wouldn't ignore Gizmodo. And further, Gizmodo doesn't want to get sued, which they would, if it was nonsense and they didn't put in the work to confirm the validity of the leak.

WotC needs to move on this sooner rather than later, or they're going to have to write off a lot of Golden Vault preorders -- the most engaged players are both the ones most likely to preorder this book and the ones most likely to know about the OGL situation. And given how many books are stacked up one after another this year, they need to stop this from impacting all these product launches.

And speaking of product launches, the uncertainty here is probably going to really hurt ZineQuest next month.