Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 9432763" data-attributes="member: 7034611">Yeah, almost everything he said in that section is at worst a lie and at best a lot of revision and spin&quot;Chris Cocks: &quot;Yeah, I mean, that was about a year and a half ago. And that was a serious case of foot and mouth disease. From our perspective, we did it wrong. And we apologized.&quot;And I think we quickly made amends. I think where we were coming from [00:46:00] on that whole thing, and the open game license for people who don't know, it was something that was established about 20ish years ago. That basically opens up the rule set and some of the core content for Dungeons and Dragons to create a lingua franca rule set and set of content for people to be able to play tabletop role playing games.&quot;&quot;So what we were trying to do is we were trying to evolve it because a document that was created in 2002 didn't foresee the rise of video games. It didn't foresee the rise of AI tools. It didn't foresee even things like content streaming. So our goal there was to try to protect an end user's ability to be able to make content and have fun and a creator's ability to create content and be able to make a living off of it while preventing kind of like a quick serve restaurant from using the D&amp;D brand to sell tacos or a big video game company to be able to create a video game using the IP in a way that wasn't fair to us as the kind of quote unquote brand owners, or maybe do something that we didn't necessarily like with the brand or had content that was inappropriate.&quot;That was not foot in mouth, you were clear on what you wanted, and what you wanted was godawful. That is not a case of being misunderstood. This was not about your IP, no one could use your IP anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mamba, post: 9432763, member: 7034611"] Yeah, almost everything he said in that section is at worst a lie and at best a lot of revision and spin "Chris Cocks: "Yeah, I mean, that was about a year and a half ago. And that was a serious case of foot and mouth disease. From our perspective, we did it wrong. And we apologized. "And I think we quickly made amends. I think where we were coming from [00:46:00] on that whole thing, and the open game license for people who don't know, it was something that was established about 20ish years ago. That basically opens up the rule set and some of the core content for Dungeons and Dragons to create a lingua franca rule set and set of content for people to be able to play tabletop role playing games." "So what we were trying to do is we were trying to evolve it because a document that was created in 2002 didn't foresee the rise of video games. It didn't foresee the rise of AI tools. It didn't foresee even things like content streaming. So our goal there was to try to protect an end user's ability to be able to make content and have fun and a creator's ability to create content and be able to make a living off of it while preventing kind of like a quick serve restaurant from using the D&D brand to sell tacos or a big video game company to be able to create a video game using the IP in a way that wasn't fair to us as the kind of quote unquote brand owners, or maybe do something that we didn't necessarily like with the brand or had content that was inappropriate." That was not foot in mouth, you were clear on what you wanted, and what you wanted was godawful. That is not a case of being misunderstood. This was not about your IP, no one could use your IP anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification