How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Reynard]

This is plausible, and was part of Dancey's rationale for the OLG - ie contra some recent posts it was not "altruistic" but rather a calculated method of increasing WotC's market share and profits.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, do something that financially benefits you and creates a general good in society or culture. Dancy clearly believed the OGL would do both (and I think evidence strongly suggests he was right).

This aspect is what i think got many of us so irritated with WotC when all this started: there was no reason WotC couldn't continue to see record growth and profits, and at the same time maintain the good that was Open Gaming. They actively chose to burn down Open gaming. We just don't quite know why yet. I'm assuming greed and hubris, but it is possible someone had a legitimate (if ill conceived) plan.

 

[CapnZapp]

WotC's apparent goal is to drive 3PPs out of the D&D and D&D-adjacent market place. I think that (what seems to be a) widespread acceptance that they do enjoy a unilateral power to bring current licensing arrangements to an end, and (what seems to be a) widespread failure to focus on what I have bolded, is serving that goal.

(Whether their goal is consistent with their long term commercial interests is a further question that this post does not speculate on.)

The important part is that they no longer want to share D&D with anybody.

Now they will have to face the consequences of being viewed as greedy, harsh and shortsighted.

And, they will have to compete with new exiting games that release just when D&D One is to be released. Even if those game steal only 10% of the market share (and Paizo's PF1 stole a heck of a lot more than that) it easily represents a far greater loss than all the license fees the OGL 1.1 could ever generate...

 

[pemerton]

they will have to compete with new exiting games that release just when D&D One is to be released.

WotC already competes with exciting games, some of them new and some not.

I personally don't find a D&D clone neo-trad vehicle more exciting because it's commercialised by Paizo rather than WotC.

 

[CapnZapp]

Each moment that they're stalling is working against them.

They can't do anything. They will never get the bosses to sign on to something that can actually save this, since the bosses job is to generate out of D&D now.

Ryan Dancey's theory is wonderful


Note the video should start at the 1 hour 12 minute 25 seconds mark, or thereabouts. You need to watch him speak for six minutes, give or take.

 

[CapnZapp]

WotC already competes with exciting games, some of them new and some not.

I personally don't find a D&D clone neo-trad vehicle more exciting because it's commercialised by Paizo rather than WotC.

That's relativization that misses the point.

The point is that the one thing WotC doesn't want, is its former fans releasing fantasy games that directly target D&D gamers, and does so right when WotC releases a brand new edition.

This is not obscure neckbeards releasing strange games. This will be the recognizable faces that used to love WotC and D&D, that now tell you to play their games instead of D&D One, a brand which says it is "open" when everybody agrees it is not.

D&D One is anything but "the one game that brings everybody together". It will be known as the edition that made everybody leave the party, and it isn't unlikely that at least one of the competitor games will become a new Paizo with a new "D&D but better" type of game offering.

 

[S'mon]

WotC's apparent goal is to drive 3PPs out of the D&D and D&D-adjacent market place. I think that (what seems to be a) widespread acceptance that they do enjoy a unilateral power to bring current licensing arrangements to an end, and (what seems to be a) widespread failure to focus on what I have bolded, is serving that goal.

Yes, but sadly we need to distinguish between

1. Legal reality, that WoTC almost certainly cannot legally revoke OGL 1.0 licencing of their SRDs even for future products, with
2. Commercial reality, that any future Kickstarter still including OGL 1.0 is likely to be seen as tainted by potential backers.

We can both advise #1, but the people like my friend, with money in the game, have to think about #2.

 

[S'mon]

I think we also agree the weight of their legal basis doesn't matter.

It is the lack of threat that made people play in WotC's playground.

Now the kids have scattered, and no amount of candy will bring them back.

Sadly, I have to agree.

 

[pemerton]

The point is that the one thing WotC doesn't want, is its former fans releasing fantasy games that directly target D&D gamers, and does so right when WotC releases a brand new edition.

This is not obscure neckbeards releasing strange games. This will be the recognizable faces that used to love WotC and D&D, that now tell you to play their games instead of D&D One, a brand which says it is "open" when everybody agrees it is not.

Paizo already publishes games that compete directly with WotC. I don't see how they are more of a commercial thread to WotC by ceasing to be licensed under the OGL, and instead putting their legal eggs into the non-copyright-infringement basket.

 

[S'mon]

D&D isn't dead.

I think it's dead the way the Perrier mineral water brand is dead, at least in the UK market. Not that you cannot buy it, but it's gone from dominant to insignificant. Little or no 'attractive force'.

 

[Reynard]

Paizo already publishes games that compete directly with WotC. I don't see how they are more of a commercial thread to WotC by ceasing to be licensed under the OGL, and instead putting their legal eggs into the non-copyright-infringement basket.

I don't think PF2 directly competes with 5E. A little bit around the edges, maybe, but the differences in complexity level really do put most fans in one or the other camp. The thing that Kobold is likely to do is create a game that DOES directly compete with WotC for 5E players.