WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox talks about D&D on NPRs Here & Now. Topics include Layoffs and OGL.

[Alzrius]

I just find this type of logic to be a way to keep the WoTC grievances rolling. This scenario is highly unlikely but of course not impossible.

So was WotC trying to revoke the OGL, until it wasn't anymore.

It just feels exhausting to spend all this mental energy focusing on something that theoretically in the distant future could happen but probably won’t.

Which no one would even think to do if WotC hadn't tried to revoke a license that they'd previously said was perpetual. What was that someone else said about "what negative impact has it had?"

 

[Alzrius]

No.
A challenge of the legality of the CC by some kind of unilateral withdrawal does absolutely challenge any company using software licensed under the CC.

No, it really doesn't, simply because WotC isn't actually issuing a legal challenge; they're just threatening to do so, daring anyone to publish under the CC's 5.1 SRD, and then when they do, then WotC takes them to court.

Literally, that's how it works. WotC makes the announcement, and suddenly everyone else is scared to publish, even though they know WotC's legal reasoning is bunk. Because publishing is daring them to sue you, and at that point you're gambling whether or not they will, and you can't afford for them to do so. Unless you think Apple or Microsoft will step in and pay your bills (or will suddenly start publishing 5E material themselves), they can't get involved besides issuing amicus briefs, which aren't going to pay your legal fees.

 

[jerryrice4949]

So was WotC trying to revoke the OGL, until it wasn't anymore.

Which no one would even think to do if WotC hadn't tried to revoke a license that they'd previously said was perpetual. What was that someone else said about "what negative impact has it had?"

Sure. But it seems clear to me there is nothing that will happen for you to move beyond that. It is in the past. Steps have been taken to rectify it. Does that mean WoTC is benevolent and can be trusted? Of course not. Does that mean WoTC is evil and out to destroy all RPGs? Of course not. To me it means we are in a period of stability and I can enjoy it.

 

[Distracted DM]

1. Net Promoter Score (NPS)
2. Customer Satisfaction Score (CSAT)
3. Customer Lifetime Value (CLV)
4. Customer Retention Rate (CRR)
5. Churn Rate
6. Repeat Purchase Rate (RPR)
7. Engagement Metrics

Some brands use all, some use some. I'm at work now I didn't want to write a book or overstep my place as I am not Myrdin. But if you google those terms you can find more info on each one.

You just triggered my 5yrs of sales PTSD.

 

[Yaarel]

For 5e 2024, I expect an SRD for it to come out with CC during 2025.

I want the SRD update to be done well, and to not rush it. I am willing to be patient for it.

But as a gesture of good will, I do expect it.

 

[Alzrius]

Sure. But it seems clear to me there is nothing that will happen for you to move beyond that.

You mean besides the part where I outlined exactly that?

It is in the past.

I disagree; I think this thread shows that there are legitimate aspects to this which are still very much in the present.

Steps have been taken to rectify it.

And some of us are saying that further steps should be taken.

 

[jerryrice4949]

You mean besides the part where I outlined exactly that?

I disagree; I think this thread shows that there are legitimate aspects to this which are still very much in the present.

And some of us are saying that further steps should be taken.

I am fairly certain your list of ‘requirements’ will never be met in full. I will stick by my statement thanks.

 

[Alzrius]

I am fairly certain your list of ‘requirements’ will never be met in full. I will stick by my statement thanks.

I don't think they will either, but given that they're simple, easy, and inexpensive, that's something that I think speaks to WotC/Hasbro a lot more than it does me.

 

[Hussar]

So you're of the opinion that several weeks of anxiety for the entire industry, and multiple publishers having to upend their business plans, wasn't a negative impact?

The underlying premise to what you're saying here, which is the implication that "negative impact" is only measured by permanent/continuing losses, isn't how a lot of other people define that particular phrase.

Dunno about "other people". I only speak for myself. Can you say the same?

But if that's what you go by, then how about this: there are other SRDs which have yet to be released into the CC, and for people who still publish under the OGL, the continuing anxiety about that is a "negative impact" by your standard.

No, it really didn't. Just ask anyone who publishes under the OGL for a different SRD. Or do they not count?

And at the end of the day, I'd say you're wrong. But don't take my word for it, take the word of this PhD dissertation about how the OGL resulted in more creativity, which means that damaging it the way WotC has is likely to result in less, since the CC doesn't have as many SRDs.

Oh good. Appeal to authority as well. At least it's a good university.

No one claimed that the OGL didn't result in more creativity. Let alone me. So, I'm not sure why you're quoting this at me. But, at the end of the day, we're simply never going to agree on this. You believe that this has had this huge, ongoing, negative impact on the hobby. I believe that it had a huge, negative impact on the hobby that was quickly resolved and has resulted in a healthier hobby going forward.

Time will tell which of us is right. But, until then, neither of us is going to convince each other of anything.

 

[Hussar]

Keep telling yourself that. The idea of "WotC's revocation is on dubious legal ground, and would probably fail in court, but since they have enough money and lawyers to make fighting a legal battle bankrupt anyone they file suit against, it doesn't really matter," applies just as easily to CC as it does to the OGL.

You believe WotC has enough money and lawyers to bring down the Creative Commons License? Again, I don't think we're going to agree on this.