Ginny Di interviews WotC's Kyle Brink

Continuing the D&D executive producer's interview tour, gaming influencer Ginny Di asks a WotC's Kyle Brink about the OGL and other things.

​

 

[ctorus]

Anyone who believes WotC's concern was genuinely about 'toxic OGL content', now or in the future, there's several bridges I'd like to interest you in.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

D&D is tiny? When WOTC is literally half of Hasbro profit I don’t think D&D is tiny.

The profit and revenue mainly comes from MtG. Top end estimate is that D&D made $150M of more than $1B of revenue and that is very recent.

WoTC (and Hasbro) has been carried along by MyG for a while. D&D only recently started getting mentioned in earnings calls.

 

[mamba]

They may have the big name, but they want to assure complete dominance, and that is absolutely not assured given their monetization plans.

Rather, nuking the VTT market so that people don't have other places to go for their product makes their release far safer, especially if (like most big tech projects) they run into technical hurdles initially. This way people have to use their system because there simply aren't other options.

they can do that without nuking the OGL too. Do not license 1DD to the existing VTTs and let the 5e licenses expire, done.

Without the subclasses (not in the SRD) and official adventures, the other VTTs are effectively removed from the D&D market.

They do not use the SRD today, so changes to the OGL for this are not helpful / needed.

 

[Iosue]

they can do that without nuking the OGL too. Do not license 1DD to the existing VTTs and let the 5e licenses expire, done.

Without the subclasses (not in the SRD) and official adventures, the other VTTs are effectively removed from the D&D market.

They do not use the SRD today, so changes to the OGL for this are not helpful / needed.

This is a very good point, and IMO somewhat lends credence to the idea that they were worried more about implementations in future technology than specifically trying to cripple the current major VTTs. (With the caveat that there were almost certainly people within WotC that would have been happy with the effect a new OGL and VTT policy would have on those as well.)

I tend to think for people to miss the forest for Brink’s extemporaneous example trees. I doubt internal discussion at WotC revolved around such concrete examples. Rather, they more likely revolved around the economic and technological changes in the 23 years since the OGL came out, and what the future might hold. Advances in VR and AI, ubiquitousness of smartphones, emergence of monopolistic mega-conglomerates, the huge increase in the D&D market, and its increased value as a brand beyond the RPG itself.

I used to think that this whole thing was a strategic plan to conquer the VTT market that led to corporate overreach. Now I’m thinking that this was a corporation getting scared about having so much of their mechanical IP out there and open in a world much different from 2000, and a bunch of different stakeholders in the company went down their own particular rabbit holes, with no one realizing how the big picture looked.

 

[bedir than]

Kyle is not really from the publishing industry and D&D is tiny in Hasbro. So I have doubts that they have publishing centric lawyers and that he knows what is “usual”.

I marked that down as a probable lie.

Cannot be proven, of course. But rings false.

Brinks has over 25 years in the games publishing industry. As you continually beat on him for lying you aren't doing basic fact checking of yourself.

He must likely does know the way publishing works, in video games, which may be different than books, but that doesn't make one a liar

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Anyone who believes WotC's concern was genuinely about 'toxic OGL content', now or in the future, there's several bridges I'd like to interest you in.

Hmmh...I recently bought the Eiffel Tower... so...

I genuinely have a problem with the idea that it is just corporate greed. I guess there were a whole lot of reasons why some people at WotC thought it might be a good idea. The core was certainly to protect their recent and future investment...
... and then they did everything wrong.

 

[Umbran]

Anyone who believes WotC's concern was genuinely about 'toxic OGL content', now or in the future, there's several bridges I'd like to interest you in.

Mod Note:

Folks,

It is time for you all to remember that you are speaking with real people, and that suggesting they are stupid (or have other personal flaws) for not agreeing with you makes you the bad guy.

Don't be the bad guy.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but should we really believe that?

Please demonstrate to me where WotC was acting with such intelligence that this is an implausible scenario.

The idea of Meta suddenly making a D&D VTT clone when they can barely make office call software comes off more as a deflection against a company nobody likes

For one thing, WotC hasn't exactly demonstrated that they really understand technology.

For another thing, there's no reason to think that this was about fear of sudden changes.

 

[Velderan]

Minor gripe with the video format: the editing at some points made it hard to tell if Kyle's answer was actually in response to her question. I'm not accusing her of anything, but an example of it was when she asked what they're doing to rebuild trust with the community and his response where he went on about creating content standards for their own material felt like he was answering a different question due to how the video was edited. Again, not accusing her of anything. It just seemed awkward to watch.

A couple things from this video:
- Kyle is clearly sticking to the Meta boogeyman for why they felt they needed to change things, but at best it just continues to make WotC look more and more out of touch with the community if they can't understand a $50k income reporting requirement with $750k was going way overboard in preventing potential rivals with deep pockets from coming in. At worst, it makes Kyle look like a liar since he keeps insisting it was about future abuse while their own post in December clearly stated it would impact around 20 current publishers. If your stated goal of preventing Meta from coming in was your actual goal, it should have affected 0 current publishers and it wouldn't have been too hard to work with the other publishers to craft language to prevent this boogeyman from coming in. Paizo, Kobold Press, and EN Publishing all have a similar interest in preventing a bigger company coming in and taking their market away, I'm sure they'd be open to working on a way to keep the playing field level that benefits everyone.

- I feel like a lot of people on both sides of the argument need to watch this video from 21:15 on. 100% spot on accurate assessment of the situation IMO. They're a company folks, they're not good or evil. They're motivated by profits like most businesses. Every single choice is made to increase those profits.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Brinks has over 25 years in the games publishing industry. As you continually beat on him for lying you aren't doing basic fact checking of yourself.

He must likely does know the way publishing works, in video games, which may be different than books, but that doesn't make one a liar

Computer game publishing is not D&D. D&D is book publishing. All of the 3rd party companies they were talking to are also book publishers.

There are some similarities between the two, but sometimes I think that is where WoTC is tripping up because they have recently hired a bunch of computer game people into senior positions.

I don’t see the two publishing as the same, but I do see your point as well. It does make me less sure of my stronger conclusion there.

 

[Justice and Rule]

they can do that without nuking the OGL too. Do not license 1DD to the existing VTTs and let the 5e licenses expire, done.

Without the subclasses (not in the SRD) and official adventures, the other VTTs are effectively removed from the D&D market.

They do not use the SRD today, so changes to the OGL for this are not helpful / needed.

You don't need to license it over to other VTTs to have that happen. Foundry has no license for D&D but you can still strip DNDBeyond of the info through it. They didn't do that, they tried killing off the rest of the VTT market preemptively.

When you nuke something, you aren't being surgical. You just nuke it. It's simpler to understand and hurts the competition more.

I genuinely have a problem with the idea that it is just corporate greed. I guess there were a whole lot of reasons why some people at WotC thought it might be a good idea. The core was certainly to protect their recent and future investment...
... and then they did everything wrong.

Why? Just look at what happened to Magic, as well as their sky-high projections on how they want to build the brand.

Please demonstrate to me where WotC was acting with such intelligence that this is an implausible scenario.

Please demonstrate to me where WotC has acted with enough sincerity that we should trust their own explanations?

Really, it's not about "intelligence", because neither of our scenarios has it. Both are dumb moves. The difference is that their own explanation comes off as an excuse, where the devil made them do it ("We had to act!"). My version has a more logical, profit-driven idea behind it ("We're the market leaders, we can wreck our competitors and give ourselves the best chance to hit our goals!") and follows what they've been trying to do so far.

For one thing, WotC hasn't exactly demonstrated that they really understand technology.

For another thing, there's no reason to think that this was about fear of sudden changes.

Yes, but we have simpler, easier-to-justify scenarios right there. Why take the one that requires a heretofore unmentioned worry by Wizards rather than simply say "They are putting everything on 1DND, they are trying to maximize their market by killing their competition ahead of releasing their new edition and VTT"?

Again, it just comes off as an excuse and requires us to trust Wizards's own explanation of why they did what they did.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

they can do that without nuking the OGL too. Do not license 1DD to the existing VTTs and let the 5e licenses expire, done.

Without the subclasses (not in the SRD) and official adventures, the other VTTs are effectively removed from the D&D market.

They do not use the SRD today, so changes to the OGL for this are not helpful / needed.

One of the major VTT (Foundry) does not have a license with them but there are tools to scrape all the materials from D&D Beyond.

Fantasy Grounds has a license but in 4th edition there was a tool to scape the books from the digital system then. I use Fantasy Grounds and Smiteworks (their owners) have made it clear that any book already bought is safe. FG also has a robust marketplace for 3PP to sell their books.

All the major VTT also support other RPG.

The gun that was aimed at all not WoTC was not the VTT stuff, it was aimed at Drivethru in terms of potentially ordering them to cease selling OGL products if the OGL was deauthorized.

WoTC can still shut off their partner VTT from One D&D books and that will be a revenue blow to them, probably a pretty big one. But it will be a blow to WoTC as they then need their VTT to make up that revenue.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

I also remain convinced that the interviews are part of the process to protect their most important asset - the Movie.

We are all celebrating our victory and in some ways I think the PR campaign looks more like a Hollywood crisis expert was brought in.

 

[mamba]

You don't need to license it over to other VTTs to have that happen. Foundry has no license for D&D but you can still strip DNDBeyond of the info through it.

that sounds like a technical gap WotC can fix, not a legal right VTTs have. If WotC went through the trouble of not renewing licenses, this way would get closed as well.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

that sounds like a technical gap WotC can fix, not a legal right VTTs have

I can always cut and paste. I routinely enter data into Fantasy Grounds and I have been buying D&D Beyond books since it first started (as of now they lost my paper and D&D Beyond Heist books purchase but I will buy on FG to future proof in case the license is not renewed next year).

 

[mamba]

One of the major VTT (Foundry) does not have a license with them but there are tools to scrape all the materials from D&D Beyond.

there being a way now is not the same as WotC guaranteeing this will continue to be available. If they went so far as to not renew licenses, you can safely assume they would not allow for this to continue either.

All the major VTT also support other RPG.

So? Nothing WotC can do about that, with the OGL or without

The gun that was aimed at all not WoTC was not the VTT stuff, it was aimed at Drivethru in terms of potentially ordering them to cease selling OGL products if the OGL was deauthorized.

this is at most collateral damage, not the goal. 1.0a products could continue to be sold, 1.1 were only affected past a threshold, 1.2 were not affected at all again.

WoTC can still shut off their partner VTT from One D&D books and that will be a revenue blow to them, probably a pretty big one. But it will be a blow to WoTC as they then need their VTT to make up that revenue.

If they fear losing money that way, then they can simply renew the licenses.

The point is what WotC can or cannot do to VTTs does not depend on the SRD and by extension not on the OGL either

 

[Myrdin Potter]

there being a way now is not the same as WotC guaranteeing this will continue to be available. If they went so far as to not renew licenses, you can safely assume they would not allow for this to continue either.

I am amazed they allow it at all since they have licensed VTT partners. The fact that the have not licensed Foundry points to me as a reason to believe they want to further restrict access in the future.

 

[mamba]

I also remain convinced that the interviews are part of the process to protect their most important asset - the Movie.

We are all celebrating our victory and in some ways I think the PR campaign looks more like a Hollywood crisis expert was brought in.

I am pretty sure this is why the survey was cut short

 

[mamba]

I am amazed they allow it at all since they have licensed VTT partners. The fact that the have not licensed Foundry points to me as a reason to believe they want to further restrict access in the future.

not sure why Foundry does not have a license, maybe because they can get away with this. Closing this hole is a ‘Foundry is using our stuff without a license’ problem, not a ‘we want to shut down all VTTs’ one

 

[Justice and Rule]

that sounds like a technical gap WotC can fix, not a legal right VTTs have. If WotC went through the trouble of not renewing licenses, this way would get closed as well.

There will always be gaps. If you destroy the other VTTs, there will be no one left to exploit them.