See, this is just more error and confusion.
Consideration is the benefit granted by one contracting party to another, in virtue of which a contract becomes binding in common law systems. (A teacher's summary of what constitutes a contract in the common law: the meeting of minds over a bargain. My understanding of the civil law of contract is that intention to create legal relations is key, and consideration plays more of an evidentiary than a constitutive role; but I'm happy to be corrected on that by any civilian lawyers in the thread.)
It is possible for consideration to be purely formal - ie the execution of a deed - but we can leave that to one side, as WotC has not made any offers or entered into any agreements under deed, in the context of the OGL, to the best of my knowledge.
With the case of a deed left to one side, the consideration must be something of benefit that flows from one party to the other. It can be executed (eg when you buy food at the supermarket, the formation of the contract coincides with you making the payment) or it can be executory (eg when you buy a car or a house, and enter into a contract in which the purchaser agrees to pay the price, and the vendor agrees to transfer the title, on the agreed settlement date).
With all that in mind, there are multiple obvious reasons why
the OGL helping WotC maintain market dominance is not consideration:
(1) It does not flow from the parties.
(2) It is neither executed (something the parties give to WotC in constituting the contract) nor executory (a promise of performance on a future date).
(3) WotC would not be relieved of its contractual obligations if in fact no market dominance occurred.
(4) The OGL makes no reference to it.
The OGL states expressly (in section 4) what the consideration is that flows WotC's way: it is the licensees promise to "use this licence". This use of the licence brings with it multiple duties which change the licensee's legal position, and it is that change of legal position that is the value that flows to WotC.
@Aspirinsmurf has pointed out one element of the change of legal position - the promises under section 7 in relation to Product Identity. There are also the promises under section 2 and 8 to offer licences in respect of both used and newly-created OGC to all the world. And there's also the promise under section 9 to allow downstream licensees to choose from the authorised versions as to which one they use to make their offers to licence.
The fact that the consideration that flows to WotC is non-pecuniary is an interesting difference from the contracts of sale for goods and services, and contracts of employment, that most people are more familiar with. But it is not particularly remarkable: a contract whereby I agree to clean your gutters if you agree to mow my lawn would be a perfectly good contract even though it doesn't involve any payment nor a promise to pay.
None of the above is controversial. It's all basic common law of contract, that follows from the application of basic principles to the particular terms of the OGL. A person who can't read the licence and recognise these features of it is not really competent to express opinions about its legal effect and operation.
