Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Hasbro's CEO Reports OGL-Related D&D Beyond Cancellations Had Minimal Impact
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justice and Rule" data-source="post: 8940570" data-attributes="member: 6778210"><p>I find the reads on the situation that this was just some benign mistake by someone who didn't understand what they were doing to be really unconvincing. We know that Wizards needs to make money: Hasbro is using them to prop up the rest of the company and they released a presentation where they wanted to sextuple their profits to make it a $1B Franchise.</p><p></p><p>All these mistakes feed into each other: the VTT policy being "they don't know how VTTs really work" comes off as willing ignorance, since we know that they want to monetize their own VTT. What did they say you couldn't do? Oh hey, things like <em>animations</em>, which we've heard touted as one of the things they want to be selling for their own VTT. The policy is clearly there to make sure that people aren't offering for free what they want to make people pay for, and thus comes off as a <em>very </em>calculated move.</p><p></p><p>The same with their moves on the OGL and such. These come off as closing the door behind them and forcing people to move on by removing the 3PP market from the previous editions. Why do this? Well, they need the next edition to <em>succeed big</em>, in a way that 5E has even yet to (which is really, <strong><em>really</em></strong> saying something). Closing the door definitively on the previous edition means you <em>have </em>to move on if you want new published material. It's definitely ill-conceived, but I don't think there is any way to say that they weren't trying to do what they were attempting.</p><p></p><p>Instead, I think they got pushback in a way they simply didn't expect. For many companies, they can just sort of do this sort of thing and expect their customer base to eventually come back. I don't think they expected sustained pushback on 1.2, which was meant to at least <em>look</em> more benign than the previous draft (not a high bar to clear, admittedly). I think a lot of companies expect people to eventually just "give up" and eventually come back, and there was certainly a push for that, but I think they were seeing a much larger and sustained outrage compared to what they were expecting... and an outlet for it to be expressed in the new playtest.</p><p></p><p>And for the love of Lathander, can we stop talking about NuTSR? They aren't related to OGL, they are just doing straight-up illegal things. Even Brink on his apology tour could come up with no proof of anything out there harming their brand from OGL. If we want to talk about things not having proof, let's start here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justice and Rule, post: 8940570, member: 6778210"] I find the reads on the situation that this was just some benign mistake by someone who didn't understand what they were doing to be really unconvincing. We know that Wizards needs to make money: Hasbro is using them to prop up the rest of the company and they released a presentation where they wanted to sextuple their profits to make it a $1B Franchise. All these mistakes feed into each other: the VTT policy being "they don't know how VTTs really work" comes off as willing ignorance, since we know that they want to monetize their own VTT. What did they say you couldn't do? Oh hey, things like [I]animations[/I], which we've heard touted as one of the things they want to be selling for their own VTT. The policy is clearly there to make sure that people aren't offering for free what they want to make people pay for, and thus comes off as a [I]very [/I]calculated move. The same with their moves on the OGL and such. These come off as closing the door behind them and forcing people to move on by removing the 3PP market from the previous editions. Why do this? Well, they need the next edition to [I]succeed big[/I], in a way that 5E has even yet to (which is really, [B][I]really[/I][/B] saying something). Closing the door definitively on the previous edition means you [I]have [/I]to move on if you want new published material. It's definitely ill-conceived, but I don't think there is any way to say that they weren't trying to do what they were attempting. Instead, I think they got pushback in a way they simply didn't expect. For many companies, they can just sort of do this sort of thing and expect their customer base to eventually come back. I don't think they expected sustained pushback on 1.2, which was meant to at least [I]look[/I] more benign than the previous draft (not a high bar to clear, admittedly). I think a lot of companies expect people to eventually just "give up" and eventually come back, and there was certainly a push for that, but I think they were seeing a much larger and sustained outrage compared to what they were expecting... and an outlet for it to be expressed in the new playtest. And for the love of Lathander, can we stop talking about NuTSR? They aren't related to OGL, they are just doing straight-up illegal things. Even Brink on his apology tour could come up with no proof of anything out there harming their brand from OGL. If we want to talk about things not having proof, let's start here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Hasbro's CEO Reports OGL-Related D&D Beyond Cancellations Had Minimal Impact
Top